ILR Bulletin, Vol 12 2007
4 October 2007

Print this page

CLJ Law MALAYSIA http://www.cljlaw.com

Introduction:
To get the most out of this law bulletin join CLJ Law Online now - http://www.cljlaw.com/registration.asp
Feel free to forward this to your colleagues. Get this bulletin as email by going to http://www.cljlaw.com/ilrsubscribefrm.asp

INDUSTRIAL LAW REPORTS ISSUE 8 of 2007

SUBJECT INDEX

DISMISSAL

Breach of company rules and policies - Negligence - Claimant losing documents in his possession - Whether proven by first company - Whether claimant had breached his duty of care - Claimant aware of contents of envelope - Company suffering losses - Losses negligible - Effect of - Whether claimant’s explanation acceptable - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Mohd Hakim Nordin v. Tai Kwong Yokohama Berhad
(Susila Sithamparam) [2007] 2 ILR 371

Breach of respondent company’s rules and policies - Contravention of Grievance Procedure and Internet Policy - Whether claimant had been extended a copy - Claimant admitting to having knowledge of such policies and procedures - Position of claimant - Whether claimant ought to have known - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Bax Global Imports (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v. Saravanan Rajagopal
(Chew Soo Ho) [2007] 2 ILR 434

Constructive dismissal - Claimant suspended based on allegations of misconduct - Claimant issuing ultimatum to bank - Claimant subsequently walking out of employment - Whether amounted to constructive dismissal - Conduct of bank - Whether bank’s conduct showed an intention no longer to be bound by contract of employment - Effect of - Whether conduct of company in dealing with claimant was reasonable - Whether constructive dismissal proven - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Rosli Yahya v. Affin Bank Berhad
(Rajendran Nayagam) [2007] 2 ILR 474

Constructive dismissal - Transfer/Relocation - Whether claimant’s new job was effectively a transfer or a relocation - Respondent using term interchangeably - How determined - Claimant repeatedly asking for the terms and conditions of his new employment - Respondent refusing to supply - Effect of - Whether proper - Conduct of respondent - Whether mala fide - Whether fundamental breach of terms of employment - Whether justified claimant walking out of employment - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Fung Chau Yin v. Comsa Farms Berhad
(P Iruthayaraj D Pappusamy) [2007] 2 ILR 289

Insubordination - Whether claimant had refused to obey transfer order - Whether proven by respondent company - Effect of - Whether transfer order had been carried out by respondent company in bad faith - Whether claimant had been given enough time to comply with the transfer order - Effect of - Whether dismissal was without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Lam Ho Enterprise Sdn Bhd v. Tan Kah Chai
(Mohd Amin Firdaus Abdullah) [2007] 2 ILR 233

Misconduct - Claimant allegedly refusing to obey transfer order - Claimant asking for more time before transfer effected - Whether respondent company had condoned claimant’s request - Conduct of respondent company - Effect of - Whether company had acted bona fide - Insufficient proof adduced by company - Effect of - Whether dismissal was without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Lam Ho Enterprise Sdn Bhd v. Tan Kah Chai
(Mohd Amin Firdaus Abdullah) [2007] 2 ILR 233

Misconduct - Claimant charged with authoring and distributing e-mails containing derogatory and abusive language - Whether respondent had proven that e-mails had come from claimant’s notebook - Whether charge proven by the respondent - Whether the claimant had managed to successfully refute the respondent’s allegations against him - Whether respondent’s actions in singling out the claimant from all the other IT staff and charging him had been reasonable - Whether respondent’s belief that claimant had been guilty had been well founded - Effect of - Whether claimant’s allegation of having been framed proven - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Bax Global Imports (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v. Saravanan Rajagopal
(Chew Soo Ho) [2007] 2 ILR 434

Misconduct - Claimant charged with authoring and distributing e-mails containing derogatory and abusive language - Whether claimant had been aware of contents of the e-mail that was the subject matter of the charge against him - Bundle of documents filed by relevant parties and exchanged way before the trial - Bulk of the e-mails attached to the bundle - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Bax Global Imports (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v. Saravanan Rajagopal
(Chew Soo Ho)  [2007] 2 ILR 434

Misconduct - Claimant committing misconduct out of necessity to survive - Claimant facing financial difficulties - Respondent aware of claimant’s financial difficulties - Respondent making unreasonable deductions to claimant’s salary despite this - Whether respondent had breached provisions of the Employment Act 1955 - Effect of - Whether respondent had directly contributed to claimant committing the misconducts - Whether the punishment of dismissal had been too harsh under the circumstances - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3), 30(5) & Employment Act 1955, s. 24(8)
Airport Limo (M) Sdn Bhd v. Syed Jamal A Nasir Syed Mustafa
(Chew Soo Ho) [2007] 2 ILR 350

Misconduct - Whether allegations against claimant proven - Claimant pleading not guilty throughout - Effect of - Whether company had acted bona fide - company wound-up and liquidators appointed - Effect on Award of Court - Proposals made by Court to circumvent problem in future - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Seltom Pacific Sdn Bhd v. Maren Subramaniam
(Tan Yeak Hui) [2007] 2 ILR 310

Misconduct - Whether respondent succeeded in proving charges - Whether onus and burden of proof discharged by the respondent - Claimant admitting to some of the charges - Whether respondent had contributed to the commission of the charges by the claimant - Respondent aware of the financial difficulties being faced by claimant - Respondent failing to address the claimant’s problem - Whether respondent had given enough opportunity to the claimant to improve - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Airport Limo (M) Sdn Bhd v. Syed Jamal A Nasir Syed Mustafa
(Chew Soo Ho) [2007] 2 ILR 350

Notice of termination - Failure to state reasons for termination - Reasons only surfacing when Statement in Reply filed by company - Effect of - Whether a basic requirement had been violated - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Ah Yat Abalone Forum Restaurant Sdn Bhd v. Chow Gee Cheu & Anor
(Choong Siew Khim) [2007] 2 ILR 267

Notice of termination - Forced resignation - Whether claimant had succeeded in proving - Whether claimant had agreed to voluntarily resign from the company - Whose version more probable - Whether proven - Conduct of claimant - Whether claimant had been dismissed without just cause and excuse by the company - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Goh Teoh Ean v. Halim Mazmin Berhad
(Jalaldin Hj Hussain) [2007] 2 ILR 380

Notice of termination - Forced resignation - Determination of claimant’s salary - Whether there had been an agreement to pay claimant more than what had been stated in his letter of offer - Whether proven - Based on claimant’s oral evidence and assertions only - Claimant failing to adduce proof - Effect of - Whether to be held against claimant - Whether claimant had been dismissed without just cause and excuse by the company - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Goh Teoh Ean v. Halim Mazmin Berhad
(Jalaldin Hj Hussain) [2007] 2 ILR 380

Notice of termination - Termination simpliciter - Pursuant to terms and conditions of employment - Whether Court could interfere with terms and conditions of employment as agreed between the parties - Under what circumstances could the Court interfere - Company suffering from poor business - Whether proven by company - Company closing down cafeteria - Whether company still operating cafeteria - Whether any mala fides on part of company in closing down the cafeteria - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Krishnamah G Naidu v. Limkokwing Institute Of Creative Technology/Malaysia Creative Capital Sdn Bhd
(Tan Yeak Hui) [2007] 2 ILR 417

Performance - Poor performance - Whether proven by company - Company failing to give the claimants either verbal or written warnings - Whether it was pre-requisite to the claimants termination - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Ah Yat Abalone Forum Restaurant Sdn Bhd v. Chow Gee Cheu & Anor
(Choong Siew Khim) [2007] 2 ILR 267

Police investigation - Theft of raw materials - Criminal element - Whether proven by company - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Press Metal Berhad v. Mustafa Ngamil & Anor
(Franklin Goonting) [2007] 2 ILR 251

Probationer - Claimant terminated during probation term - Effect of - Whether claimant could be terminated pursuant to terms and conditions of employment - Under what circumstances can a probationer employees services be terminated by an employer - Whether company had acted arbitrarily and/or capriciously in terminating the claimant - Whether any mala fides on the company’s part in terminating the claimant - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Krishnamah G Naidu v. Limkokwing Institute Of Creative Technology/Malaysia Creative Capital Sdn Bhd
(Tan Yeak Hui) [2007] 2 ILR 417

Retrenchment - Redundancy - Whether respondent company had proven that a redundancy situation existed - Effect of - What constituted a lay-off - Whether a lay-off situation existed in the respondent company - Whether conduct of company in issuing two memorandums within days of each other was reasonable - Whether claimant’s request for more time in view of company’s stand constituted a misconduct - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3), Employment (Termination and Lay-Off Benefits) Regulations 1980 & Employment Act 1955, ss. 12 & 13
Lam Ho Enterprise Sdn Bhd v. Tan Kah Chai
(Mohd Amin Firdaus Abdullah) [2007] 2 ILR 233

DOMESTIC INQUIRY

Procedural impropriety - Claimant denied right to be heard and not allowed to present his defence - Whether there had been a breach of the principles of natural justice - Whether the DI was valid - DI finding the claimant not guilty on a technicality - Claimant nevertheless terminated from his services - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Bax Global Imports (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v. Saravanan Rajagopal
(Chew Soo Ho) [2007] 2 ILR 434

Procedural impropriety - No documents or witnesses provided to support company’s allegations during the Domestic Inquiry - Claimant being found guilty nevertheless - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Seltom Pacific Sdn Bhd v. Maren Subramaniam
(Tan Yeak Hui) [2007] 2 ILR 310

Procedural impropriety - Whether formal Court procedure necessary - Whether claimant had been given opportunity to answer case presented against him - Whether presiding panel had been impartial - Claimant affixing signature on all pages of inquiry notes - Effect of - Whether rules of natural justice had been complied with - Whether the Domestic Inquiry had been valid - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Airport Limo (M) Sdn Bhd v. Syed Jamal A Nasir Syed Mustafa
(Chew Soo Ho) [2007] 2 ILR 350

EVIDENCE

Adverse inference - Non-production of a material witness - Evidence Act 1950 s. 114(g)
Fung Chau Yin v. Comsa Farms Berhad
(P Iruthayaraj D Pappusamy) [2007] 2 ILR 289

Adverse inference - Non-production of material witnesses - Hearsay evidence - Material witness if had testified would have given best evidence - Whether there existed extraordinary circumstances in the case which justified the Court accepting second-best evidence - Test to be applied - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Press Metal Berhad v. Mustafa Ngamil & Anor
(Franklin Goonting) [2007] 2 ILR 251

Burden and onus of proof - On company on balance of probability - Whether company had discharged onus and burden of proof - Whether claimants had to specifically deny accusations - Claimants failing to deny - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Press Metal Berhad v. Mustafa Ngamil & Anor
(Franklin Goonting) [2007] 2 ILR 251

Burden of proof - Balance of probability - Whether claimant had managed to discharge burden - Effect of - Whether claimant had been dismissed without just cause and excuse by the company - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Goh Teoh Ean v. Halim Mazmin Berhad
(Jalaldin Hj Hussain) [2007] 2 ILR 380

Documentary evidence - Applicability of Evidence Act 1950 to hearings before tribunals - Criteria to be used for matters in the industrial court - Whether industrial court bound by strict rules of evidence - Evidence Act 1950 s. 2
Rosli Yahya v. Affin Bank Berhad
(Rajendran Nayagam) [2007] 2 ILR 474

Documentary evidence - Findings of the domestic inquiry - Domestic inquiry held at different times in relation to each claimant - No witnesses called or evidence recorded - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Press Metal Berhad v. Mustafa Ngamil & Anor
(Franklin Goonting) [2007] 2 ILR 251

Witness - Claimant giving conflicting evidence - Whether claimant attempting to lie his way out of situation - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Bax Global Imports (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v. Saravanan Rajagopal
(Chew Soo Ho) [2007] 2 ILR 434

Witness - Conflicting evidence - Claimant and CLW2 constantly changing testimonies - Confusion caused thereto - Effect of - Whether worked against them - Whether claimant had been dismissed without just cause and excuse by the company - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Goh Teoh Ean v. Halim Mazmin Berhad
(Jalaldin Hj Hussain) [2007] 2 ILR 380

INDUSTRIAL COURT

Procedure - Action - Internal procedures of company pre-termination carried out in reverse order to norm - Whether that had effect on validity of internal inquiry - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Press Metal Berhad v. Mustafa Ngamil & Anor
(Franklin Goonting) [2007] 2 ILR 251

Procedure - Action - Transfer - Claimant failing to file affidavit-in-reply - Effect of - Factors to consider - Financial hardship - Suffered by whom - Unsupported by affidavit evidence of claimant - Whether the Industrial Court was subject to the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3), 29(g) & Courts of Judicature Act 1964 s. 23(1)
Lee Sow Shyong v. S R Marble Sdn Bhd
(Zura Yahya) [2007] 2 ILR 322

Procedure - Action - Whether there was an irregularity in the respondent’s action in not following the inquiry’s recommendations - Whether management obliged to follow inquiry’s recommendations - Management prerogative - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Airport Limo (M) Sdn Bhd v. Syed Jamal A Nasir Syed Mustafa
(Chew Soo Ho) [2007] 2 ILR 350

Procedure - Ex parte proceedings - Company filing Statement in Reply but failing to attend Court and defend case - effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Seltom Pacific Sdn Bhd v. Maren Subramaniam
(Tan Yeak Hui) [2007] 2 ILR 310

Procedure - Pleadings - Numerous grounds pleaded by respondent company in terminating claimant’s employment - Effect of - Whether caused confusion - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Lam Ho Enterprise Sdn Bhd v. Tan Kah Chai
(Mohd Amin Firdaus Abdullah) [2007] 2 ILR 233

Quantum of damages - Claimant given compensation earlier on by respondent company - Doctrine of estoppel - Whether existed in industrial adjudication - Whether issue of unjust enrichment arose - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Lam Ho Enterprise Sdn Bhd v. Tan Kah Chai
(Mohd Amin Firdaus Abdullah) [2007] 2 ILR 233

Remedies - Reinstatement - Whether appropriate - Backwages and compensation in lieu of reinstatement - Whether commissions could be included in calculation of award - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Airport Limo (M) Sdn Bhd v. Syed Jamal A Nasir Syed Mustafa
(Chew Soo Ho) [2007] 2 ILR 350

TRADE DISPUTE

Collective Agreement - Effective date - How determined - Terms and Conditions of Service - Interpretation on articles on hospitalisation, implementation, wage policy, bonus, retirement and other benefits - Whether collection of union dues could be added as a clause - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 26(2), 30(4), 30(5) & 30(7)
Dan Kaffe (M) Sdn Bhd v. Kesatuan Pekerja-pekerja Perkilangan Perusahaan Makanan
(Syed Ahmad Radzi Syed Omar) [2007] 2 ILR 276

Collective Agreement - Financial capacity of company - Whether company suffering such severe losses that paying salary increments to employees as asked by the union would render them unable to operate any longer - Whether company had managed to prove - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 26(2), 30(4) & 30(5)
Kesatuan Pekerja-pekerja Perusahaan Membuat Tekstil & Pakaian Pulau Pinang Dan Seberang Perai v. Far East Cotton Industries (M) Sdn Bhd
(Syed Ahmad Radzi Syed Omar) [2007] 2 ILR 411

INDEKS PERKARA

PEMBUANGAN KERJA

Pengurangan pekerja - Aktiviti responden terjejas akibat peristiwa 9/11 - Responden mengambil langkah mengurangkan perbelanjaannya - Kesannya - Samada responden berjaya membuktikan bahawa pembuangan kerja Yang Menuntut perlu untuk mengurangkan perbelanjaan - Samada terdapat unsur mala fide di pihak responden dalam menjalankan pengurangan pekerja - Kesannya - Samada pembuangan kerja Yang Menuntut dilakukan secara adil dan sah - Akta Mahkamah Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(3)
The Association Of Asia Pacific Airlines lwn. Mohamed Asharat Ramzan Ali
(Kamaruzaman Ab Jalil) [2007] 2 ILR 326

Pengurangan pekerja - Samada responden wajib memberi notis kepada Yang Menuntut - Samada Yang Menuntut mempunyai pengetahuan mengenai keadaan kewangan dan perniagaan responden yang memaksa responden mengambil langkah-langkah untuk mengurangkan perbelanjaan - Kesannya - Samada pembuangan kerja Yang Menuntut dilakukan secara adil dan sah - Akta Mahkamah Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(3)
The Association Of Asia Pacific Airlines lwn. Mohamed Asharat Ramzan Ali
(Kamaruzaman Ab Jalil) [2007] 2 ILR 326

Pengurangan pekerja - Samada dijalankan oleh responden secara bona fide - Samada prinsip LIFO dipakai - Samada kerja YM dikurangkan sehingga tidak diperlukan lagi - Kesannya - Tatacara untuk keharmonian perusahaan - Samada terpakai - Samada pembuangan kerja YM dilakukan atas alasan yang adil dan sah - Akta Mahkamah Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(3)
Guinness Anchor Berhad lwn. Junaidah Singah
(Kamaruzaman Ab Jalil) [2007] 2 ILR 464

Pengurangan pekerja - Samada YM mempunyai pengetahuan tentang pengurangan pekerja tersebut - Perbincangan diadakan antara responden dan kesatuan sekerja YM - Kesannya - YM enggan menerima jawatan lain dari responden - Kesannya - Samada pembuangan kerja YM dilakukan atas alasan yang adil dan sah - Akta Mahkamah Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(3)
Guinness Anchor Berhad lwn. Junaidah Singah
(Kamaruzaman Ab Jalil) [2007] 2 ILR 464

PROSIDUR

Tindakan - Samada Mahkamah harus mendengar tindakan ini secara de novo atau separuh dengar - Kriteria yang harus diambil kira - Mahkamah bertindak mengikut ekuiti dan kemurniaaan - Samada pembuangan kerja Yang Menuntut dilakukan secara adil dan sah - Akta Mahkamah Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3), 23(6) & 29(g)
The Association Of Asia Pacific Airlines lwn. Mohamed Asharat Ramzan Ali
(Kamaruzaman Ab Jalil) [2007] 2 ILR 326

CASE OF THE WEEK

AIRPORT LIMO (M) SDN BHD v. SYED JAMAL A NASIR SYED MUSTAFA

DISMISSAL: Misconduct - Whether respondent succeeded in proving charges - Whether onus and burden of proof discharged by the respondent - Claimant admitting to some of the charges - Whether respondent had contributed to the commission of the charges by the claimant - Respondent aware of the financial difficulties being faced by claimant - Respondent failing to address the claimant’s problem - Whether respondent had given enough opportunity to the claimant to improve - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)

ILR Bulletin
To Subscribe/Unsubscribe go to http://www.cljlaw.com/ilrsubscribefrm.asp

Copyright ©1997 - 2007 CLJ Legal Network Sdn Bhd (192353 V)
Email: enquiries@cljlaw.com Phone: 603-4270-5400 Fax No : 603-4270 5401 & 603-4270 5402