ILR Bulletin, Issue 2008, Vol 07
July 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 7 of 2008

AWARDS REPORTED

SUBJECT INDEX

Breach of company rules and policies - Negligence - Claimant involved in an accident - Claimant not charged by the police or issued a summons - Years of service of the claimant - First accident in 22 years - Effect of - Whether the company had managed to establish the misconduct against the claimant - What constituted negligence - Whether claimant’s previous accident could be used against him - Whether the punishment of dismissal had been too harsh under the circumstances - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Syarikat Kenderaan Melayu Kelantan Bhd v. Radzuan Drahman
(Syed Ahmad Radzi Syed Omar) [2008] 3 ILR 62

Breach of company rules and policies - Negligence - Job functions of the claimant - Whether security had been a shared responsibility - Effect of - Whether the company had managed to establish the misconduct against the claimant - What constituted negligence - Whether the punishment of dismissal had been too harsh under the circumstances - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Nadarajan Ramalingam v. Group Associated (C & L) Sdn Bhd
(Rajendran Nayagam) [2008] 3 ILR 218

Constructive dismissal - Benefits - Claimant suspected of misconduct and put on suspension - Prolonged suspension - No specific charges levelled against him for 91 days - Effect of - Whether it had been calculated to drive the claimant out of his employment - Claimant requesting reinstatement to original position - Company not responding or complying - Claimant walking out of employment - Claimant claiming constructive dismissal - Effect of - Whether proper - Conduct of company - 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)
Eon Bank Berhad v. Lee Seng Onn
(Amelia Tee Hong Geok Abdullah) [2008] 3 ILR 170

Constructive dismissal - Benefits - Claimant suspended on allegations of misconduct - Whether claimant had been aware of the allegations preferred against him - Whether the allegations had warranted his suspension - 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)
Eon Bank Berhad v. Lee Seng Onn
(Amelia Tee Hong Geok Abdullah) [2008] 3 ILR 170

Constructive dismissal - Benefits - Claimant not given increments or benefits - Claimant suspected of misconduct and put on suspension - Whether claimant had been entitled to increments and bonuses during period of suspension - Claimant walking out of employment and claiming constructive dismissal - Effect of - Whether claimant had delayed walking out - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Eon Bank Berhad v. Lee Seng Onn
(Amelia Tee Hong Geok Abdullah) [2008] 3 ILR 170

Contract of employment - No acceptance by claimant of the aforesaid contract - Effect of - Claimant unable to provide the original with his acceptance shown - Claimants pay-slips - No deductions of EPF or SOCSO - What that showed - Effect of - Whether the company had discharged its burden on a balance of probability - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Elwin Tan Tee Wing v. Inter-Vision Media (M) Sdn Bhd
(Yeoh Wee Siam) [2008] 3 ILR 29

Frustration of contract - Claimant’s medical illness making performance of his duties to the company impossible - Claimant had earlier resigned and withdrawn his resignation on company’s advice - Company’s application to have the claimant medically boarded out unsuccessful - Claimant not turning up for work - Whether claimant had been unfit to work - Effect of - Whether claimant’s conduct had amounted to a frustration of his contract of employment - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Kempas Edible Oil Sendirian Berhad v. Abu Bakar Talib
(Abdul Aziz Khalidin) [2008] 3 ILR 11

Misconduct - Not in relation to claimant’s job - Occupation of quarters by claimant - Whether claimant had been to blame for the disturbance - Whether proven by the company - Claimant failing to follow directive to vacate - Whether it amounted to insubordination - Whether the company had managed to establish the misconduct against the claimant - Whether claimant had put his personal needs above those of the company - Past record of claimant - Whether it had been taken into consideration - Whether relevant mitigating factors had been taken into account - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Sugayindran Vellasamy v. TNB Distiribution Sdn Bhd
(Rajendran Nayagam) [2008] 3 ILR 72

Retrenchment - Redundancy - Claimant in a category of her own - Whether LIFO principles were applicable - Effect of - Whether dismissal
Tropical Consolidated Corporation Sdn Bhd v. Lim Hoon Cheng
(Mohd Amin Firdaus Abdullah) [2008] 3 ILR 1

Retrenchment - Redundancy - Code of conduct for industrial harmony - Intentions and purpose of the Code - Effect of - Claimant not consulted on retrenchment - Effect of - Whether claimant should have been consulted - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Nor Salehan Ahmad v. Alcatel-Lucent Malaysia Sdn Bhd
(Mary Shakila Azariah) [2008] 3 ILR 34

Retrenchment - Company restructuring - Reasons for restructuring - Whether it had been met by the retrenchments - Whether the company had been facing financial difficulties - Cost cutting measures taken by company - Effect of - Actions of the company - Whether mala fide - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Nor Salehan Ahmad v. Alcatel-Lucent Malaysia Sdn Bhd
(Mary Shakila Azariah) [2008] 3 ILR 34

Retrenchment - Redundancy - Job functions of the claimant - Claimant carrying out job until last day of work - Whether a redundancy situation had existed - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Nor Salehan Ahmad v. Alcatel-Lucent Malaysia Sdn Bhd
(Mary Shakila Azariah) [2008] 3 ILR 34

Retrenchment - Redundancy - Position of claimant - Whether a redundancy situation had really existed - Intention of company - Whether bona fide - Whether victimization by company - Whether Code of Conduct For Industrial Harmony had been adhered to - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Tropical Consolidated Corporation Sdn Bhd v. Lim Hoon Cheng
(Mohd Amin Firdaus Abdullah) [2008] 3 ILR 1

Retrenchment - Redundancy - Whether claimant had been informed of pending retrenchment - Whether claimant given training in other fields within the company - Claimant’s qualification - Effect of - Whether claimant had been able to perform - Attitude of claimant - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Tropical Consolidated Corporation Sdn Bhd v. Lim Hoon Cheng
(Mohd Amin Firdaus Abdullah) [2008] 3 ILR 1

Absence of claimant - Claimant applying for emergency leave - Leave not approved as at date of DI - TNB subsequently approving leave - Effect of - Whether company had been reasonable in their conduct - Claimant denied opportunity of being heard - Whether the DI had been against the rules of natural justice - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Sugayindran Vellasamy v. TNB Distiribution Sdn Bhd
(Rajendran Nayagam) [2008] 3 ILR 72

Procedural impropriety - Basis of the panel’s findings - Evidence given by company witnesses - Whether the findings had been flawed - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Syarikat Kenderaan Melayu Kelantan Bhd v. Radzuan Drahman
(Syed Ahmad Radzi Syed Omar) [2008] 3 ILR 62

Procedural impropriety - Charges framed 7 months after claimant’s suspension - Whether the inquiry had been a sham - Proceedings held in claimant’s absence - Whether claimant’s absence had been justified - Intention of company - 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)
Eon Bank Berhad v. Lee Seng Onn
(Amelia Tee Hong Geok Abdullah) [2008] 3 ILR 170

Adverse inference - Non-production of police report - Effect on the company’s case - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3) & Evidence Act 1950 s. 114(g)
Syarikat Kenderaan Melayu Kelantan Bhd v. Radzuan Drahman
(Syed Ahmad Radzi Syed Omar) [2008] 3 ILR 62

Burden of proof - On whom - Onus of proof - Whether decided cases on the matter - Under what circumstances would a case be referred to the Industrial Court - Whether the dismissal had been proven - Whether court could direct which party to begin case - The course which should have been taken by the applicant - Effect of course taken - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(1) & Industrial Court Rules 1967, r. 2 and 22(1)
Nepline Berhad v. Mohamed Razally Abu Hassan
(Chew Soo Ho) [2008] 3 ILR 230

Witnesses - Testimony - Quality of testimony - Testimony based on what - Effect of - Material evidence not tendered - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Syarikat Kenderaan Melayu Kelantan Bhd v. Radzuan Drahman
(Syed Ahmad Radzi Syed Omar) [2008] 3 ILR 62

Procedure - Reference to High Court - Whether the questions sought to be referred had merited a reference - Merits of the case undecided - Role of the appellate court - Principles of res judicata and functus officio - Whether applicable - Effect of - Whether requirements of s. 33A of the IRA had been satisfied - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 33A(1)
Nepline Berhad v. Mohamed Razally Abu Hassan
(Chew Soo Ho) [2008] 3 ILR 230

Procedure - Reference to High Court - Whether it had been time barred - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 33A
Nepline Berhad v. Mohamed Razally Abu Hassan
(Chew Soo Ho) [2008] 3 ILR 230

Remedies - Punishment - Disparity in treatment amongst staff responsible - Effect of - Security of the store had been a shared responsibility - Long service of the claimant - Claimant rising through the ranks based on merits - Whether that should have been considered - How negligent had the claimant been - Whether dismissal had been too harsh a punishment - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Nadarajan Ramalingam v. Group Associated (C & L) Sdn Bhd
(Rajendran Nayagam) [2008] 3 ILR 218

Remedies - Reinstatement - Whether appropriate under circumstances - Misconduct not arising from claimant’s employment - Reasons for the claimant’s dismissal - Whether there had been a breakdown in the employer-employee relationship between the parties - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Sugayindran Vellasamy v. TNB Distiribution Sdn Bhd
(Rajendran Nayagam) [2008] 3 ILR 72

Collective Agreement - Company merged with another company and refusing to enter into negotiations - Whether new company was bound by the old company’s terms of the Collective Agreement - Separate legal entities - Workforce of old company taken over by new company - Effect of - Whether the union had locus standi to represent the workers - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 26(2) & Trade Union Act 1959, s. 26(1A)
Kesatuan Pekerja-pekerja Perusahaan Letrik v. Sanyo Electric (Penang) Sdn Bhd
(Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh) [2008] 3 ILR 23

Collective Agreement - Company merged with another company - Whether old employees of the company could still be represented by the union - Whether recognition needed to be accorded to the union by the new company - Whether the union had locus standi to represent workers - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 26(2) & Trade Union Act 1959, s. 26(1A)
Kesatuan Pekerja-pekerja Perusahaan Letrik v. Sanyo Electric (Penang) Sdn Bhd
(Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh) [2008] 3 ILR 23

Pemecatan secara konstruktif - Sama ada dibuktikan oleh YM - YM sakit - YM memohon untuk diberikan tugas ringan - Tindakan yang diambil oleh syarikat - Sama ada unsur mala fide dalam tindakan syarikat - Sama ada tindakan syarikat merupakan perlanggaran yang melibatkan asas kontrak antara mereka - Kesannya - Sama ada yang menuntut melengahkan tindakannya meninggalkan kerja dan menuntut pemecatan secara konstruktif - Sama ada pembuangan kerja adalah tanpa alasan atau sebab yang adil - Akta Mahkamah Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(3)
Rosmizi Hassan lwn. Automative Manufacturers (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
(Jalaldin Hussain) [2008] 3 ILR 87

Pemecatan secara konstruktif - YM tidak membantah kepada tugasan barunya dan melapor diri ke jawatan barunya - YM meletak jawatan sebelum menjalankan tugasannya - Sama ada YM dapat mendakwa bahawa tugasannya tidak bersesuaian dengan keadaan kesihatannya - Kesannya - Sama ada syarikat telah bertindak secara bertimbangrasa dan berpatutan - Syarikat tidak mengambil tindakan disiplin terhadap YM walaupun beliau mengambil banyak cuti sakit - Sama ada syarikat menunjukan niat untuk masih lagi terikat dengan kontrak perkhidmatan - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja adalah tanpa alasan atau sebab yang adil - Akta Mahkamah Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(3)
Rosmizi Hassan lwn. Automative Manufacturers (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
(Jalaldin Hussain) [2008] 3 ILR 87

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