ILR Bulletin, Issue 2009, Vol 01
January 2009

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 1 of 2009

AWARDS REPORTED

SUBJECT INDEX

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Remedies - Certiorari - Application to quash and set aside Form J notice of assessment - Exhaustion of alternative remedy of appeal - Exceptional circumstances - Failure to perform statutory duty - Pleadings - Whether arguable case made out - Rules of the High Court 1980, O. 53 r. 3
Ta Wu Realty Sdn Bhd v. Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri & Anor
(Suriyadi Halim Omar JCA, Raus Sharif JCA, Zainun Ali JCA) [2009] 1 ILR 1

DISMISSAL

Breach of company rules and policies - Dishonesty - Claimant putting in transfer claims - Background to the circumstances leading to the claim being made - Whether it should have been considered - Bank contending that claims false as failed to comply strictly with wordings of the form - Claims form verified by the branch manager of the bank - What "verify" meant - Where ultimate responsibility had lain - Bank themselves not complying with procedure as stated in form - Effect of - Whether bank’s stand on strict compliance had been consistent - Whether it showed past practice of bank as not being so strict about procedures - Effect of - Whether claimant had breached the policy - Whether proven by the bank - Effect of - Whether the bank had managed to establish the misconduct against the claimant - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Shobashini Silvadurai v. Maybank Berhad
(Yamuna Menon) [2009] 1 ILR 195

Breach of company rules and policies - Dishonesty - Claimant putting in transfer claims - Human Resources advising her to re-submit claims - Claimant complying - Whether the claimant had been honest with the bank on the information regarding her claims - Behavior of bank thereafter - Whether bank had treated 1st claim as false claim - Claimant not being queried on 2nd claim - Whether she had been led to believe that her claims had been in order - Effect of - Whether bank had proven they had informed her that she was not entitled to claim for spouses meals - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Shobashini Silvadurai v. Maybank Berhad
(Yamuna Menon) [2009] 1 ILR 195

Breach of company rules and policies - Dishonesty - Claimant putting in transfer claims - Bank claiming claims falsely put in - Claimant issued show cause letter - Effect of - Subsequently the bank conducted an interview - Whether claimant had been given notice of such interview - The way in which the interview had been conducted - Whether it had been in breach of the rules of natural justice - Conduct of the claimant during the interview - Outcome of the interview - Whether the claimant had made an unqualified admission - Effect of - Report written up by bank and submitted to committee for determination on whether claimant should be terminated from service - Contents of the report - Whether too sketchy - Effect of - Whether the bank had proven the misconduct against her - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Shobashini Silvadurai v. Maybank Berhad
(Yamuna Menon) [2009] 1 ILR 195

Constructive dismissal - Benefits - Medical claims - Company failing to reimburse claimant fully - Claimant failing to comply with company procedure - Whether claimant’s conduct had been reasonable - Effect of - Claimant walking out on employment - Whether claimant had succeeded in proving constructive dismissal - Whether there was a fundamental breach of terms of employment by company - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Vijayarani Sittampalam v. Pembangunan Sumber Manusia Berhad
(Susila Sithamparam) [2009] 1 ILR 58

Constructive dismissal - Change in job function - Claimant’s room occupied by someone else when he returned from leave - Claimant claiming constructive dismissal - Whether the claimant had been terminated whilst he had been on leave - Whether the claimant had been aware of the termination letter - Whether the respondent had proven that the claimant had been aware of it - Whether the claimant had been terminated or walked out of his employment - Effect of -Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Zahid Ibrahim v. Baltic Pacific Sdn Bhd
(Chew Soo Ho) [2009] 1 ILR 31

Constructive dismissal - Change in job function - Claimant’s room occupied by someone else when he returned from leave - Claimant reporting to respondent’s old address - Whether the claimant had been aware of the respondent’s new address - Whether proven by respondent - Conduct of the claimant - Effect of - Whether the claimant had been terminated or walked out of his employment - Effect of -Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Zahid Ibrahim v. Baltic Pacific Sdn Bhd
(Chew Soo Ho) [2009] 1 ILR 31

Constructive dismissal - Change in job function - Whether respondent’s action of placing someone else in claimant’s room indicated a prima facie case of constructive dismissal - Whether the company had intended to be bound by their contract of employment with the claimant - Whether there had been a breach of the terms of claimants’ employment - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Zahid Ibrahim v. Baltic Pacific Sdn Bhd
(Chew Soo Ho) [2009] 1 ILR 31

Constructive dismissal - Salary - Claimant’s salary unilaterally halved - Whether constituted good industrial relations practice - Conduct of the company - Whether constructive dismissal proven - Whether fundamental breach of terms of employment - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(1) & 20(3)
Ti Tiow Koon v. Jintai (M) Sdn Bhd
(Fredrick Indran XA Nicholas) [2009] 1 ILR 91

Constructive dismissal - Salary - Company failing to pay claimant’s salary - All other staff salaries paid - Reasons given by the company - Whether reasonable - Whether an afterthought - Conduct of the company - Whether claimant had proven constructive dismissal - Whether claimant had condoned the breach - Effect of - Whether fundamental breach of terms of employment - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(1) & 20(3)
Ti Tiow Koon v. Jintai (M) Sdn Bhd
(Fredrick Indran XA Nicholas) [2009] 1 ILR 91

Constructive dismissal - Status - Company restructuring - Prerogative of company to restructure - Effect of - Claimant put in different grade of job - Claimant walking out on constructive dismissal - Claimant reinstated to former position following conciliation proceedings at the Industrial Relations Department - Claimant asked to sign settlement agreement - Whether company’s actions had been reasonable - Claimant refusing to sign - Conduct of claimant - Whether reasonable - Effect of - Conduct of company - Whether company had acted mala fide - Whether there was a fundamental breach of terms of employment by company - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Vijayarani Sittampalam v. Pembangunan Sumber Manusia Berhad
(Susila Sithamparam) [2009] 1 ILR 58

Insubordination - Claimant failing to carry out COW2’s instructions immediately - Claimant failing to explain respondent’s practise to COW2 - Whether claimant could ignore following COW2’s instructions where the practice of the respondent had been in conflict with COW2’s instructions - Attitude of claimant - Effect of - What the claimant should have done - Claimant subsequently carrying out COW2’s instructions within shift - Whether claimant had failed to follow his superior’s directive - Effect of - Whether the respondent had acted mala fide - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Arasapan Ramaiah v. Ampang Hotel Sdn Bhd (Concorde Hotel Kuala Lumpur)
(Chew Soo Ho) [2009] 1 ILR 68

Insubordination - Claimant failing to carry out COW2’s instructions immediately - Effect of - Claimant subsequently carrying out COW2’s instructions within shift - Whether that should have been taken into account by the respondent before dismissing him - Disparate punishment meted between staff of the respondent for the same misconduct - Effect of - Whether the punishment of dismissal had been too harsh under the circumstances - Whether the respondent had acted mala fide - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Arasapan Ramaiah v. Ampang Hotel Sdn Bhd (Concorde Hotel Kuala Lumpur)
(Chew Soo Ho) [2009] 1 ILR 68

Misconduct - Claimant watching TV during his shift - Whether the elements of the charge had been proven against the claimant - Respondent failing to call witnesses to establish its case - Effect of - Whether the respondent had succeeded in proving this misconduct against the claimant - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Arasapan Ramaiah v. Ampang Hotel Sdn Bhd (Concorde Hotel Kuala Lumpur)
(Chew Soo Ho) [2009] 1 ILR 68

Misconduct - Respondent convening a DI - Claimant reporting back to work before receiving notification on the outcome of the DI - Whether the claimant’s actions had been reasonable - What the claimant should have done - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Zahid Ibrahim v. Baltic Pacific Sdn Bhd
(Chew Soo Ho) [2009] 1 ILR 31

Performance - Poor performance - Whether proven by the company - Effect of - Whether claimant had been verbally warned - Evidence adduced by the company - Whether sufficient to prove - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Ti Tiow Koon v. Jintai (M) Sdn Bhd
(Fredrick Indran XA Nicholas) [2009] 1 ILR 91

Performance - Unsatisfactory performance - Whether proven by the company - Claimant given oral warnings - Whether sufficient - Claimant failing to improve - Effect of - Whether claimant had managed to prove mala fide intent on the part of the company - Conduct of claimant - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Tan Seng Lee v. Universal Drillers Sdn Bhd
(Siti Saleha Abu Bakar) [2009] 1 ILR 112

Probationer - Probationer claimant - Rationale behind putting someone on probation - Claimant terminated after 15 days of employment - Whether company’s decision had been bona fide - Company claiming claimant unsuitable for the job - Effect of - Whether proven by the company - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Tan Seng Lee v. Universal Drillers Sdn Bhd
(Siti Saleha Abu Bakar) [2009] 1 ILR 112

Retrenchment - Redundancy - Code of Conduct for Industrial Harmony not followed - Claimants not warned of impending retrenchment - Whether claimants should have been consulted and warned - Whether Code should have been followed - Effect of - Reasonableness of employers actions - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3) & Code of Conduct for Industrial Harmony
Mat Desa Saad & Anor v. Langkawi Ferry Services Sdn Bhd
(Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh) [2009] 1 ILR 15

Retrenchment - Redundancy - LIFO principles not followed - Whether applicable - Whether it had compromised company’s retrenchment exercise - Effect of - Whether the claimants retrenchment had been done bona fide - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Mat Desa Saad & Anor v. Langkawi Ferry Services Sdn Bhd
(Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh) [2009] 1 ILR 15

Retrenchment - Redundancy - Whether company had faced a financial slowdown - Profit and loss accounts not submitted by the company - No reasons adduced - Effect of - Whether the company’s actions were bona fide - Whether a redundancy situation had existed - Whether proven by the company - Other steps taken by the company to show cost cutting measures - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3) & 30(5)
Mat Desa Saad & Anor v. Langkawi Ferry Services Sdn Bhd
(Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh) [2009] 1 ILR 15

Victimization - Whether the claimant had succeeded in proving - Evidence adduced by the claimant - Conduct of the claimant after the alleged breaches had taken place - Whether the claimant had affirmed the contract - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Zahid Ibrahim v. Baltic Pacific Sdn Bhd
(Chew Soo Ho) [2009] 1 ILR 31

DOMESTIC INQUIRY

Procedural impropriety - Whether the claimant had been allowed to present his defence and cross-examine witnesses - No evidence of the same in type-written DI notes - Whether the principle of audi alteram partem had been complied with - Effect of - Whether the DI had been valid - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Arasapan Ramaiah v. Ampang Hotel Sdn Bhd (Concorde Hotel Kuala Lumpur)
(Chew Soo Ho) [2009] 1 ILR 68

EVIDENCE

Documentary evidence - Findings of the DI - Accuracy of - Original notes not produced in court - Typewritten notes not verified against original notes of the DI - Effect of - Accuracy of typewritten notes brought into question - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Arasapan Ramaiah v. Ampang Hotel Sdn Bhd (Concorde Hotel Kuala Lumpur)
(Chew Soo Ho) [2009] 1 ILR 68

INDUSTRIAL COURT

Jurisdiction - Effective date of constructive dismissal not stated - Effect of - What was effective date of constructive dismissal to be implied - Ministerial reference dated before the claim for constructive dismissal - Effect of - Whether the court had the jurisdiction to hear the matter - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Zahid Ibrahim v. Baltic Pacific Sdn Bhd
(Chew Soo Ho) [2009] 1 ILR 31

Jurisdiction - What governed proceedings in the Industrial Court - Right of opposite party to object to solicitor representation - Whether court duty-bound to adjudicate the matter - Powers of the Industrial Court - Court of equity and good conscience - Not bound by legal technicalities - Whether the industrial court had inherent jurisdiction - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) and 27, Industrial Court Rules 1967, rr. 3 and 4 & Legal Profession (Practise & Etiquette) Rules 1978, r. 3
Sugunasegari P S Suppiah v. Sap Malaysia Sdn Bhd
(Franklin Goonting) [2009] 1 ILR 51

Jurisdiction - Whether Industrial Court could hear dispute to its conclusion - No challenge taken by company to Ministers reference by way of certiorari or prohibition - Effect of - Whether the court was seized with jurisdiction to hear and determine the dispute - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Mat Desa Saad & Anor v. Langkawi Ferry Services Sdn Bhd
(Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh) 15

Procedure - Pleadings - Claimant relying on past practice of bank and claims put in by another employee of bank - Not pleaded in Statement of Case - Whether could be taken into account by the court - Termination letter issued by bank silent on reasons for claimants termination - Bank failing to hold a Domestic Inquiry - Effect of - Claimant not filing rejoinder - The rule on filing rejoinder - Whether claimant bound by her pleadings - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3) & Industrial Court Rules 1967, r. 11
Shobashini Silvadurai v. Maybank Berhad
(Yamuna Menon) [2009] 1 ILR 195

Procedure - Representation of the claimant - What governs it - Whether solicitors representing her had a personal relationship with her - Test to be applied - Effect of - Whether etiquette rules would be breached by such representation - Ruling sought by company - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) and 27, Industrial Court Rules 1967, rr. 3 and 4 & Legal Profession (Practise & Etiquette) Rules 1978, r. 3
Sugunasegari P S Suppiah v. Sap Malaysia Sdn Bhd
(Franklin Goonting) [2009] 1 ILR 51

Remedies - Compensation - Fixed compensation - Probationer claimant - What sort of compensation was fair - Factors to consider - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Ti Tiow Koon v. Jintai (M) Sdn Bhd
(Fredrick Indran XA Nicholas) [2009] 1 ILR 91

Remedies - Compensation - Whether the claimant had contributed by way of his conduct towards his dismissal - Attitude of the claimant - Effect of - Factors to consider - Percentage of reduction to be made under the circumstances - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Arasapan Ramaiah v. Ampang Hotel Sdn Bhd (Concorde Hotel Kuala Lumpur)
(Chew Soo Ho) [2009] 1 ILR 68

Remedies - Reinstatement - Probationer claimant - Whether reinstatement appropriate under circumstances - Factors to consider - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Ti Tiow Koon v. Jintai (M) Sdn Bhd
(Fredrick Indran XA Nicholas) [2009] 1 ILR 91

INTERPRETATION

Collective Agreement - Article on hotel accommodation - Whether reimbursable or fixed allowance - Claims put in by claimant - Whether she had been entitled to it - Effect of - Whether the claimant had submitted a false claim - Whether proven by the bank - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Shobashini Silvadurai v. Maybank Berhad
(Yamuna Menon) [2009] 1 ILR 195

Collective Agreement - Article on meal allowance - Bank taking a narrow interpretation of article - Effect of - Whether reimbursable or fixed allowance - Claims put in by claimant - Whether she had been entitled to it - Effect of - Whether claimant had submitted a false claim - Whether proven by the bank - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Shobashini Silvadurai v. Maybank Berhad
(Yamuna Menon) [2009] 1 ILR 195

WORDS & PHRASES

"employee" - Definition of - Interpretation of - No contracts of employment between claimants and company - Crew agreements signed between parties - Whether that had taken the claimants outside the ambit of the Employment Act 1955 - Effect of - Employment Act 1955, s. 2, Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20 and Part III of the Merchant Shipping Ordinance 1952
Mat Desa Saad & Anor v. Langkawi Ferry Services Sdn Bhd
(Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh) [2009] 1 ILR 15

"personal relationship" and "embarrassment" - What constituted - Judicial precedent - Effect of - Whether there existed a personal relationship between the claimant and the said solicitors - What action the said solicitors should have taken - Legal Profession (Practise & Etiquette) Rules 1978, r. 3
Sugunasegari P S Suppiah v. Sap Malaysia Sdn Bhd
(Franklin Goonting) [2009] 1 ILR 51

"workman" - Definition of - Whether wide interpretation - Effect of - Whether claimants came within the definition of workman - Employment Act 1955, s. 2 & Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20
Mat Desa Saad & Anor v. Langkawi Ferry Services Sdn Bhd
(Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh) [2009] 1 ILR 15

INDEKS PERKARA

PEMBUANGAN KERJA

Pemecatan secara konstruktif - Benefit - Kemudahan pengisian minyak - Sama ada merupakan terma perkhidmatan Yang Menuntut - Sama ada pemberian kemudahan pengisian minyak merupakan suatu terma tersirat - Sama ada syarikat boleh menarik balik kemudahan tersebut pada bila-bila masa - Syarikat memberhentikan benefit tersebut tanpa memaklumkan Yang Menuntut - Kesannya - Sebab yang dikemukakan oleh syarikat untuk penarikan balik kemudahan tersebut - Sama ada dibuktikan - Sama ada tindakan syarikat adalah munasabah - Apa yang seharusnya dilakukan oleh syarikat - Sama ada tindakan syarikat merupakan perlanggaran yang melibatkan asas kontrak antara mereka - Yang Menuntut cuba mendapatkan penjelasan - Syarikat mengelak Yang Menuntut - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja adalah tanpa alasan atau sebab yang adil - Akta Mahkamah Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(3)
Abdul Halim Abu Ali lwn. Tegas Mesra Sdn Bhd
(Jalaldin Hj Hussain) [2009] 1 ILR 119

Pemecatan secara konstruktif - Gaji - Yang Menuntut tidak dibayar gaji - Kesannya - Tindakan yang diambil oleh Yang Menuntut - 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)
Abdul Halim Abu Ali lwn. Tegas Mesra Sdn Bhd
(Jalaldin Hj Hussain) [2009] 1 ILR 119

Pemecatan secara konstruktif - Perubahan dalam skop kerja Yang Menuntut - Sama ada tugasan Yang Menuntut diambil alih oleh COW1 - COW1 bukan pekerja syarikat pada masa yang material - Kesannya - Yang Menuntut tidak dimaklumkan tentang perubahan tersebut - Yang Menuntut cuba mendapatkan penjelasan daripada syarikat - Tindakan syarikat - Sama ada munasabah - Kesannya - Sama ada tindakan syarikat merupakan suatu pecah kontrak terma perkhidmatan Yang Menuntut - Sama ada syarikat mempunyai niat untuk menyingkir YM secara halus - Sama ada Yang Menuntut berjaya membuktikannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja adalah tanpa alasan atau sebab yang adil - Akta Mahkamah Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(3)
Abdul Halim Abu Ali lwn. Tegas Mesra Sdn Bhd
(Jalaldin Hj Hussain) [2009] 1 ILR 119

CASE OF THE WEEK

TANG SUNG TECK v. CHIN LIAN LONG MOTOR VEHICLE CO BHD

DISMISSAL: Misconduct - Claimant’s attitude towards his superiors - Whether reasonable - Claimant given warning in the past - Failing to take heed - Effect of - Claimant’s position in company - Whether misconduct proven by the company - Effect Of - Whether dismissal had been too harsh under the circumstances - Whether the claimant’s misconducts had been grievous enough to justify summary dismissal - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)

DISMISSAL: Absenteeism - Claimant’s absence from work without authorisation - Whether proven by the company - Evidence led by company - Quality of evidence - Whether sufficiently corroborated - Whether acceptable - Effect of - Conduct of claimant - Reasons given by claimant - Attitude of claimant - Effect of - Whether taken into consideration by the company - Whether the company’s action in dismissing him had been reasonable - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, 20(3)

DISMISSAL: Misconduct - Claimant allowing publication of newspaper article without company’s authorisation or consent - Whether reasonable - Company information divulged - Effect of - Position held by the claimant - Whether company authorisation had been necessary - Reasons adduced by the claimant - Whether proven by the claimant - Evidence adduced by the claimant - Whether sufficient - Effect of - Whether the company’s action in dismissing him had been reasonable - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3) and Evidence Act 1950, ss. 32(g) & 114(g)

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