ILR Bulletin, Issue 2008, Vol 04
April 2008

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 4 of 2008

AWARDS REPORTED

SUBJECT INDEX

Breach of company rules & policies - Negligence - Whether claimant had been aware of SPI 195 and its contents - Whether gross negligence proven by respondent company - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
L Devan T Linga Nathan v. Hong Leong Bank Bhd
(Mohd Amin Firdaus Abdullah) [2008] 2 ILR 51

Breach of company rules & policies - Negligence - Whether claimant solely to blame for encashment of cheque - Functions and duties of the claimant - Whether doctrine of superior orders applied - Effect of - Previous practise of the respondent company - Duration that claimant had held the appointment - Whether relevant - Whether collective responsibility had existed on part of the respondent company - Whether there had been lack of supervision by respondent company - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
L Devan T Linga Nathan v. Hong Leong Bank Bhd
(Mohd Amin Firdaus Abdullah) [2008] 2 ILR 51

Constructive dismissal - Abandonment of job - Whether claimant had abandoned his job - Conduct of claimant - Effect of - Whether fundamental breach of terms of employment - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Shuhaini Selamat v. Metacorp Properties Sdn Bhd
(Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh) [2008] 2 ILR 29

Constructive dismissal - Benefits - Claimant’s sales commissions discontinued - Claimant not entitled to sales commission under the terms of his employment - Company had been paying him commissions in the past - Whether the company had been justified in terminating such commission payments without notice - The proper course of action that should have been taken by the company - Effect of - Intention of company - Whether bona fide - Whether fundamental breach of terms of employment - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Khidmat Kitaran Alam Sdn Bhd v. Abdul Hakim Awab
(Syed Ahmad Radzi Syed Omar) [2008] 2 ILR 212

Constructive dismissal - Change in job function - Company restructuring - Claimant’s main job scope removed from him - Reason for such removal - Effect of - Conduct of company - Claimant not issued a show cause notice - Whether it should have been issued - Whether company had given him warning - Whether the claimant had been given a chance to rectify the problem - Whether restructuring had been bona fide - Whether claimant had been punished - 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)
Khidmat Kitaran Alam Sdn Bhd v. Abdul Hakim Awab
(Syed Ahmad Radzi Syed Omar) [2008] 2 ILR 212

Constructive dismissal - Victimization of the claimant - Effect of - Conduct of company - Whether claimant had been given option/ultimatum by the company - Whether mala fide - Whether the giving of the option by the company justified the claimant walking out of his employment - 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)
Shuhaini Selamat v. Metacorp Properties Sdn Bhd
(Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh) [2008] 2 ILR 29

Insubordination - Claimant allegedly refusing to do overtime work - Claimant issued show cause letter - Claimant denying charges - Claimant’s years of service in the company - Claimant’s first offence - Whether proven by the company - Effect of - Whether claimant’s conduct had been reasonable - Whether insubordination proven - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Subramaniam Mookayah v. Nestle Products Sdn Bhd
(Mary Shakila Azariah) [2008] 2 ILR 223

Insubordination - Claimant allegedly speaking rudely to superior - Whether proven by the company - Based on sole verbal evidence of claimant’s superior - Whether sufficient - Effect of - Whether insubordination proven - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Subramaniam Mookayah v. Nestle Products Sdn Bhd
(Mary Shakila Azariah) [2008] 2 ILR 223

Misconduct - Malingering - Claimant on sick leave but spotted playing football - Whether his explanation had been acceptable to the hotel - Conduct of claimant - Whether the hotel had managed to prove the misconduct against the claimant - Effect of - Whether there had been redeeming features in this case - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Azali Elias v. Crown Jewel Hotel
(Mohd Amin Firdaus Abdullah) [2008] 2 ILR 71

Misconduct - Malingering - Whether hotel had managed to prove that the medical certificate had been obtained for the purposes of playing football - Effect of - Candid testimony of claimant - Whether it showed claimant’s intention - Whether dismissal had been too harsh under the circumstances - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Azali Elias v. Crown Jewel Hotel
(Mohd Amin Firdaus Abdullah) [2008] 2 ILR 71

Misconduct - Malingering - Past misconduct of claimant - When they were relevant - Whether they should be taken into account - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Azali Elias v. Crown Jewel Hotel
(Mohd Amin Firdaus Abdullah) [2008] 2 ILR 71

Misconduct - Negligence - Virus attack on the computer - Whether company had a duty to install anti-virus programme in the computer - Whether the company had managed to establish the misconduct against the claimant - What constitutes negligence - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Suhaila Suleiman v. Vigers (JB) Sdn Bhd
(Mariah Ahmad) [2008] 2 ILR 1

Misconduct - Theft of electricity - Whether claimant had proven that he had been threatened by the company - Whether there had been a conspiracy against him - Evidence led in respect thereto - Whether sufficient - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Tenaga Nasional Berhad v. Anbualagan Ramasamy
(Choong Siew Khim) [2008] 2 ILR 80

Misconduct - Theft of electricity - Whether proven by the company - Effect of - Other employees of the company involved - Other employees punished by the company - Breach of company’s discipline rules - Whether there had been a blatant disregard of the same - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Tenaga Nasional Berhad v. Anbualagan Ramasamy
(Choong Siew Khim) [2008] 2 ILR 80

Notice of termination - Verbal termination - Whether claimant had proven - Respondent denying terminating claimant’s services - Effect of - Whether dismissal had taken place - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Klinik Ng Dan Singh v. Garlene Theresa Bahvayandiran
(Franklin Goonting) [2008] 2 ILR 112

Performance - Unsatisfactory performance - Claimant given training on the job - Claimant given verbal warnings by company - Whether failure to give written warnings had been fatal to the company - Whether company had given sufficient opportunity to claimant to improve - Conduct of the claimant - Whether company’s actions in dismissing claimant bona fide - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Lee Lee Kian v. Chiropractic Healthcare (M) Sdn Bhd
(Abdul Aziz Khalidin) [2008] 2 ILR 19

Probationer - Claimant not confirmed in her position - Claimant’s probation period extended - Claimant failing to improve despite being given extension to her probation period - Attitude of claimant - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Lee Lee Kian v. Chiropractic Healthcare (M) Sdn Bhd
(Abdul Aziz Khalidin) [2008] 2 ILR 19

Resignation - Voluntary resignation - Whether claimant voluntarily left - Position held by claimant - Effect of - 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)
Restoran Soon Lee Hou v. Lim Peng Kee
(Mohd Amin Firdaus Abdullah) [2008] 2 ILR 46

Procedural impropriety - Conduct of proceedings by the Chairman - Effect of - Whether the claimant had understood the proceedings -Whether a prima facie case had been made out against the claimant - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Azali Elias v. Crown Jewel Hotel
(Mohd Amin Firdaus Abdullah) [2008] 2 ILR 71

Procedural impropriety - Drafting of charge against the claimant - Whether it lacked in material particulars - Effect of - Whether it had been curable - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
L Devan T Linga Nathan v. Hong Leong Bank Bhd
(Mohd Amin Firdaus Abdullah) [2008] 2 ILR 51

Procedural impropriety - Notes accurate - Type of questions put to claimant - Whether the panel had been bias - Whether the principles of natural justice had been violated - Whether respondent company had succeeded in establishing a prima facie case against the claimant - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
L Devan T Linga Nathan v. Hong Leong Bank Bhd
(Mohd Amin Firdaus Abdullah) [2008] 2 ILR 51

Admissions - Documentary evidence - Claimant’s statements - Whether it had been made voluntarily - Corroborated by company witnesses evidence - Whether culpability of claimant highlighted by virtue of - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Tenaga Nasional Berhad v. Anbualagan Ramasamy
(Choong Siew Khim) [2008] 2 ILR 80

Documentary evidence - Company documents - Whether acquired against company policy - Illegality of such documents - Admissibility of - Whether documents had really been confidential - Whether claimant had been aware of documents at the material time - Whether the documents had been relevant to the claimant’s case - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Sangat Singh Karam Singh v. Acidchem International Sdn Bhd
(Mohd Amin Firdaus Abdullah) [2008] 2 ILR 38

Documentary evidence - Minutes of meeting - No evidence in minutes of removal of the claimant’s job functions - Importance of minutes - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Khidmat Kitaran Alam Sdn Bhd v. Abdul Hakim Awab
(Syed Ahmad Radzi Syed Omar) [2008] 2 ILR 212

Witness - Conflicting evidence - Claimant giving conflicting evidence in cross examination - Effect of - Whether dismissal had taken place - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Klinik Ng Dan Singh v. Garlene Theresa Bahvayandiran
(Franklin Goonting) [2008] 2 ILR 112

Jurisdiction - Whether court had jurisdiction to hear the matter - Whether the claimant had been employed by the company at the material time - Effect of deferment of employment - Recourses open to the claimant - Industrial Relations Act 1967 ss. 2 & 20(1)
Beh Poay Ee v. Adonis Beauty Consultants Sdn Bhd
(Susila Sithamparam) [2008] 2 ILR 90

Jurisdiction - Whether court had jurisdiction to hear the matter - Claimants members of the union - Domestic remedies as provided in the collective agreement not complied with - Effect of - Whether there was a requirement to exhaust domestic remedies before bringing the matter before the court - Industrial Relations Act 1967 s. 20(1)
Rodziyah Abdullah & Ors v. Dai-Ichi Electronics (M) Sdn Bhd
(Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh) [2008] 2 ILR 13

Jurisdiction - Whether court had jurisdiction to hear the matter - Claimants filing representation - Company failing to challenge Ministers reference - Effect of - Whether preliminary issue and preliminary objection amounted to the same thing - Industrial Relations Act 1967 s. 20(1)
Rodziyah Abdullah & Ors v. Dai-Ichi Electronics (M) Sdn Bhd
(Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh) [2008] 2 ILR 13

Procedure - Locus standi of claimant to represent herself - Claimant a member of the Malaysian Bar - Preliminary objection raised by company - Whether claimant could represent herself - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 27(1)(b), 27 (1)(c) and 27 (1)(d), Legal Profession (Practise and Etiquette) Rules 1978 rr. 4, 5, 27 and 28 & Legal Profession Act 1976 s. 94(3)(d)
Panglobal Insurance Bhd v. Azmi Mohd Sharif & Ors
(Ong Geok Lan) [2008] 2 ILR 106

Procedure - Pleadings - Failure to plead constructive dismissal - Whether it could be looked into by the court - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Restoran Soon Lee Hou v. Lim Peng Kee
(Mohd Amin Firdaus Abdullah) [2008] 2 ILR 46

INDEKS PERKARA

KETERANGAN

Kesimpulan atau inferens bertentangan - Bila boleh digunapakai - Sama ada prinsip tersebut relevan dalam kes ini - Akta Keterangan 1950 s. 114(g)
Chan Kai Cheong lwn. B-Eng Trade Sdn Bhd
(Jalaldin Hussain) [2008] 2 ILR 126

Saksi - Keterangan saksi syarikat - Sama ada boleh dipercayai - Kelakuan saksi - Sama ada keterangan yang menuntut lebih meyakinkan - Kelakuan yang menuntut - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM adalah tanpa alasan atau sebab yang adil - Akta Keterangan 1950
Chan Kai Cheong lwn. B-Eng Trade Sdn Bhd
(Jalaldin Hussain) [2008] 2 ILR 126

Remedi - Gaji kebelakangan - Tempoh yang diawardkan - Bagaimana dikira - Faktor yang diambil kira - Akta Mahkamah Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(3)
TSS Security Services Sdn Bhd lwn. Subramaniam Marikkan
(Kamaruzaman Ab Jalil) [2008] 2 ILR 118

Ketidakturutan - Ingkar perintah - Yang menuntut masih menjalankan kegiatan jualan langsung walaupun diberi amaran secara lisan - Sama ada ingkar perintah tersebut cukup untuk syarikat memberhentikan perkhidmatan yang menuntut - Kesannya - Samada pembuangan kerja YM adalah tanpa alasan atau sebab yang adil - Akta Mahkamah Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(3)
Chan Kai Cheong lwn. B-Eng Trade Sdn Bhd
(Jalaldin Hussain) [2008] 2 ILR 126

Ketidakpatuhan terhadap polisi syarikat - Kegagalan yang menuntut memberitahu syarikat tentang cutinya - Cuti sakit dan tahunan yang menuntut diambil secara berselang seli selama 28 hari - Kesannya - Beban kerja yang menuntut ditanggung oleh orang lain - Sama ada kelakuan yang menuntut telah menjejaskan pengeluaran syarikat - Kesannya - Samada pembuangan kerja YM adalah tanpa alasan atau sebab yang adil - Akta Mahkamah Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(3)
Chan Kai Cheong lwn. B-Eng Trade Sdn Bhd
(Jalaldin Hussain) [2008] 2 ILR 126

Notis penamatan kerja - Kontrak lisan - Yang menuntut dibuang kerja untuk memenuhi syarat Kementrian - Sama ada responden mempunyai pengetahuan mengenai syarat tersebut sebelum menggaji yang menuntut - Kesannya - Sama ada notis yang diberikan oleh responden kepada yang menuntut memaklumkan pemberhentian kerjanya adalah berpatutan - Apakan tempoh masa notis yang berpatutan - Faktor yang diambil kira - Samada pembuangan kerja YM adalah tanpa alasan atau sebab yang adil - Akta Mahkamah Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(3)
TSS Security Services Sdn Bhd lwn. Subramaniam Marikkan
(Kamaruzaman Ab Jalil) [2008] 2 ILR 118

Notis penamatan - Samada yang menuntut didorong oleh responden untuk meletak jawatan - YM mendakwa tidak memahami isi kandungan surat perletakkan jawatan - Bahasa yang digunakan - Samada yang menuntut berjaya membuktikannya - Yang menuntut menurunkan tandatangannya dua kali tanpa penjelasan - Kesannya - Samada pembuangan kerja adalah tanpa alasan atau sebab yang adil - Akta Mahkamah Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(3)
Shinei Engineering lwn. Foong Choon Sang
(Kamaruzaman Ab Jalil) [2008] 2 ILR 97

Notis penamatan - Samada yang menuntut didorong oleh responden untuk meletak jawatan - Yang menuntut membuat akuan berkanun - Bahasa yang digunakan oleh yang menuntut - Akuan tersebut gagal untuk menyatakan bahawa penterjemahan isi kandungannya telah diberikan kepada yang menuntut - Pesuruhjaya Sumpah gagal dipanggil sebagai saksi - Kesannya - Samada pembuangan kerja adalah tanpa alasan atau sebab yang adil - Akta Mahkamah Perusahaan 1967,
s. 20(3) & Akta Akuan Berkanun 1960 s. 2
Shinei Engineering lwn. Foong Choon Sang
(Kamaruzaman Ab Jalil) [2008] 2 ILR 97

Pekerja percubaan - Kontrak lisan - Yang menuntut diberhentikan kerja semasa di dalam tempoh percubaan - Kesannya - Samada pembuangan kerja YM adalah tanpa alasan atau sebab yang adil - Akta Mahkamah Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(3)
TSS Security Services Sdn Bhd lwn. Subramaniam Marikkan
(Kamaruzaman Ab Jalil) [2008] 2 ILR 118

Salah laku - Yang menuntut terlibat di dalam aktiviti sendiri semasa waktu pejabat - Sama ada syarikat berjaya membuktikannya - Kesannya - Yang menuntut diberi amaran secara lisan - Sama ada amaran secara bertulis wajib diberikan sebelum perkhidmatan yang menuntut ditamatkan - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM adalah tanpa alasan atau sebab yang adil - Akta Mahkamah Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(3)
Chan Kai Cheong lwn. B-Eng Trade Sdn Bhd
(Jalaldin Hussain) [2008] 2 ILR 126

Salah laku - Yang menuntut gagal untuk memberitahu syarikat akan keadaan kesihatannya yang sebenar - Kesannya - Kegagalan yang menuntut untuk mengemukakan laporan perubatannya - Kelakuan yang menuntut secara keseluruhan - Sama ada syarikat telah hilang kepercayaan kepada yang menuntut dan meragui kejujurannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM adalah tanpa alasan atau sebab yang adil - Akta Mahkamah Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(3)
Chan Kai Cheong lwn. B-Eng Trade Sdn Bhd
(Jalaldin Hussain) [2008] 2 ILR 126

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

Copyright ©1997 - 2008 CLJ Legal Network Sdn Bhd (192353 V)
Email: enquiries@cljlaw.com Phone: 603-4270-5400 Fax No : 603-4270 5401 & 603-4270 5402