ILR Bulletin, Issue 2009, Vol 09
November 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 9 of 2009

AWARDS REPORTED

SUBJECT INDEX

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Judicial review - Certiorari - Dispute over recognition claim by trade union – Decision by Director General of Trade Unions to resolve dispute through membership verification instead of secret ballot - Whether Director General acted lawfully - Rules of the High Court 1980, O. 53 - Trade Unions Act 1959, s. 26(3)
Taylor’s College Sdn Bhd v. Ketua Pengarah Kesatuan Sekerja Malaysia & Ors
(Suriyadi Halim Omar JCA, Zainun Ali JCA & Sulaiman Daud JCA) [2009] 3 ILR 445

DISMISSAL

Constructive dismissal - Transfer - Claimant re-designated to new position in the orchestra - Whether it had been provided in his contract of employment - Terms of his contract of employment - Interpretation of - Effect of - Impact of the re-designation on the claimant - Whether fundamental breach of terms of employment - Whether justified claimant walking out of employment - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Arne Walter Neckelmann v. Malaysian Philharmonic Orchestra
(Ahmad Rosli Mohd Sham) [2009] 3 ILR 475

Insubordination - Company transferring the claimant - Claimant not consulted by company prior to her transfer - Whether the company had been under an obligation to consult her - Effect of - Transfer clause in claimant’s letter of employment - Scope of the transfer clause - Effect of - Claimant claiming relocation would be difficult due to lack of support - Whether proven by the claimant - Effect of - Whether the company had succeeded in establishing insubordination - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Afizah Yaakob v. Cosmopoint Sdn Bhd
(Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh) [2009] 3 ILR 653

Insubordination - Company transferring the claimant - Whether the claimant’s letter of employment had provided for her transfer - Terms and conditions of the claimant’s service - Effect of - Reasons for the transfer - Whether the transfer had been bona fide and legal - Whether it had been to satisfy the company’s business objectives - Claimant failing to obey transfer orders - Reasons for her refusal - Whether her reasons had constituted personal reasons - Effect of - Whether the company had succeeded in establishing insubordination - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Afizah Yaakob v. Cosmopoint Sdn Bhd
(Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh) [2009] 3 ILR 653

Insubordination - Company transferring the claimant - Claimant given 3 days notice informing her of her transfer - Whether it had constituted short notice to the claimant - Whether it had been to satisfy the company’s business objectives - Whether the transfer although inconvenient had been legal - Reasons for the company giving her such short notice - Effect of - Claimant failing to obey transfer orders - Claimant not submitting any formal request to extend her transfer orders - What she should have done - Effect of - Whether the company had succeeded in establishing insubordination - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Afizah Yaakob v. Cosmopoint Sdn Bhd
(Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh) [2009] 3 ILR 653

Insubordination - Company transferring the claimant - Claimant failing to obey transfer orders - Claimant claiming that transfer allowance had been insufficient - Whether the transfer allowance had been contractual - Effect of - Whether her objection to it had been reasonable - Effect of - Whether the claimant had proven that by the transfer she would have suffered a loss of remuneration and benefits - Effect of - Whether the company had succeeded in establishing insubordination - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Afizah Yaakob v. Cosmopoint Sdn Bhd
(Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh) [2009] 3 ILR 653

Insubordination - Contents of claimant’s letters to the company - Whether they had been genuine - Whether the claimant had been able to substantiate her allegations against the company - What the letters had been based on - Whether the company had answered all the claimant’s queries raised therein - Whether the claimant had been rumour mongering - What constituted rumour mongering - Company’s actions - Effect of - Claimant’s position in the company - Whether the company had succeeded in establishing insubordination - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Monica Matache v. Ikea Handel Sdn Bhd
(Mary Shakila Azariah) [2009] 3 ILR 533

Misconduct - Allegation that claimant’s behaviour had been unbecoming of her position in the company - Position held by the claimant - Whether proven by the company - Effect of - Not all issues raised by the claimant had been addressed by the company - Claimant singled out for prosecution - Whether it had been bad faith on the part of the company to single out the claimant - Whether an unfair labour practice - Whether should be encouraged - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Monica Matache v. Ikea Handel Sdn Bhd
(Mary Shakila Azariah) [2009] 3 ILR 533

Misconduct - Claimant admonishing fellow orchestra member - Whether it had been in the interests of the orchestra - Way in which it had been carried out - Whether it had constituted a disciplinary problem - Whether proven by the company - Factors to consider - Performance in the end result had not been disrupted - Effect of - Whether claimant’s conduct had been a breach of the musician’s code of conduct - Effect of - No complaints on claimant’s performance - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Arne Walter Neckelmann v. Malaysian Philharmonic Orchestra
(Ahmad Rosli Mohd Sham) [2009] 3 ILR 475

Misconduct - Claimant allegedly going against her former General Manager - Incidents taking place 2 years before - Claimant given increments and bonuses in the meantime - Misconduct being brought up against the claimant 2 years later - Whether it had been bad faith on the part of the company to raise incidents against the claimant which had happened in the past - Effect of - Whether proven by the company - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Monica Matache v. Ikea Handel Sdn Bhd
(Mary Shakila Azariah) [2009] 3 ILR 533

Performance - Unsatisfactory performance - Claimant transferred numerous times within the company - Reasons for the transfer - Whether the claimant had proven his suitability in any of his transferred positions - Effect of - Whether company had proven the charge against the claimant - Effect of - Whether it had constituted good grounds for terminating the claimant’s employment - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Mohamed Fazli Mohamed Ismail v. Kolej Teknologi Cybernetics
(Jalaldin Hussain) [2009] 3 ILR 570

Performance - Unsatisfactory performance - Whether proven by the company - Evidence relied on by the company - Whether had been accurate - Effect of - Claimant allegedly not bringing in new students - Claimant given an increment - Whether the claimant had been performing - Conduct of the company thereafter - Whether there had been any evidence of mala fide intent - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Mohamed Fazli Mohamed Ismail v. Kolej Teknologi Cybernetics
(Jalaldin Hussain) [2009] 3 ILR 570

Probationer - Whether the claimant had been a probationer at the point of his dismissal - Company’s conduct and treatment towards the claimant - Effect of - Position held by the claimant in the company - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Al-Fazirul Abdullah v. TimedotCom Berhad
(Teo Say Eng) [2009] 3 ILR 504

Retrenchment - Redundancy - MIDC closed - Reasons for closure - Whether the retrenchment had been genuine - Whether proven by the company - Effect of - Claimant’s position in MIDC - Claimant retrenched due to closure of MIDC - Whether closure of MIDC had been bona fide - Factors to consider - Way in which closure had been carried out - Effect of - Whether claimant had been the only one who had been retrenched - Whether job functions of claimant had still existed - Effect of - Whether a redundancy situation had existed - Whether proven by the company - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Al-Fazirul Abdullah v. TimedotCom Berhad
(Teo Say Eng) [2009] 3 ILR 504

Retrenchment - Redundancy - Claimant retrenched - Whether the retrenchment had been genuine - Whether the claimant had known of the impending closure of MIDC - Behaviour of the claimant - Effect of - Whether claimant had been informed of pending closure of MIDC - Whether evidence adduced by the company had been sufficient - Effect of - Whether the claimant should have been informed - What the company should have done - Whether there had been an element of mala fide on the company’s part - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Al-Fazirul Abdullah v. TimedotCom Berhad
(Teo Say Eng) [2009] 3 ILR 504

DOMESTIC INQUIRY

Charges - Framing of charges against the claimant - Whether the charges had lacked material particulars - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Monica Matache v. Ikea Handel Sdn Bhd
(Mary Shakila Azariah) [2009] 3 ILR 533

EVIDENCE

Adverse inference - Non-production of a material witness - Person playing a crucial role in the investigations and the questioning of the claimant at the DI not called to testify - Effect of - Whether an adverse inference should be drawn against the company for failing to produce this witness - Evidence Act 1950, s. 114(g)
Monica Matache v. Ikea Handel Sdn Bhd
(Mary Shakila Azariah) [2009] 3 ILR 533

INDUSTRIAL COURT

Remedies - Compensation - Expatriate claimant - Fixed term contract - How compensation would be calculated - Award to be in Euro at request of parties - The conversion rate to be applied - What date would be applicable - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 30
Monica Matache v. Ikea Handel Sdn Bhd
(Mary Shakila Azariah) [2009] 3 ILR 533

LABOUR LAW

Trade union - Recognition - Dispute over claim - Decision by Director General of Trade Unions to resolve dispute through membership verification instead of secret ballot - Judicial review - Whether Director General acted lawfully - Rules of the High Court 1980, O. 53 - Trade Unions Act 1959, s. 26(3)
Taylor’s College Sdn Bhd v. Ketua Pengarah Kesatuan Sekerja Malaysia & Ors
(Suriyadi Halim Omar JCA, Zainun Ali JCA & Sulaiman Daud JCA) [2009] 3 ILR 445

Terma dan syarat - Cuti tahunan - Sama ada yang menuntut telah mengambil cuti tahunan melebihi kelayakannya - Sikap dan kelakuan yang menuntut dalam memohon cuti tersebut - Kesannya - Sama ada sijil cuti sakit yang diperolehi oleh yang menuntut diperolehi dengan cara penipuan - Kesannya - Sama ada tindakan responden membuang kerja yang menuntut diambil secara terburu-buru - Kesannya - Sama ada salahlaku yang menuntut dibuktikan - Sama ada pembuangan kerja yang menuntut adalah tanpa alasan atau sebab yang adil - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(3)
Peter Ng & Associate v. Mageswari Pan Gan
(Roslan Mat Nor) [2009] 3 ILR 460

MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN

Prosidur - Parti - Percantuman - Sama ada pengarah syarikat harus dicantumkan - Fakta-fakta yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 29(a) & 30(5)
Cliton Yuen Kum Wah lwn. Fortune Computer Centre Sdn Bhd
(Roslan Mat Nor) [2009] 3 ILR 488

Prosidur - Tindakan - Res judicata - Sama ada terpakai kepada kes-kes mahkamah perusahaan - Kesannya - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, s. 30(5)
Cliton Yuen Kum Wah lwn. Fortune Computer Centre Sdn Bhd
(Roslan Mat Nor) [2009] 3 ILR 488

Prosidur - Tindakan - Tirai korporat - Sama ada wajar disingkap - Perkara-perkara yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, s. 30(5) & Akta Syarikat 1965, s. 16(5)
Cliton Yuen Kum Wah lwn. Fortune Computer Centre Sdn Bhd
(Roslan Mat Nor) [2009] 3 ILR 488

Remedi - Sama ada bayaran bonus tersebut boleh diambil kira dalam menentukan jumlah award terhadap yang menuntut - Sama ada bayaran bonus dinyatakan di dalam kontrak perkhidmatan yang menuntut - Kesannya - Sama ada yang menuntut telah dibayar bonus setiap tahun - Yang menuntut gagal membuktikannya - Kesannya - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, s. 30(5)
Peter Ng & Associate v. Mageswari Pan Gan
(Roslan Mat Nor) [2009] 3 ILR 460

PEMBUANGAN KERJA

Ketidakpatuhan terhadap polisi syarikat - Yang menuntut gagal untuk mencatat di dalam buku keluar masuk pejabat - Kesannya - Sama ada pekerja responden yang lain memberi kepatuhan yang ketat kepada keperluan mencatat dalam buku keluar masuk pejabat tersebut - Kesannya - Yang menuntut bekerja lebih masa sekiranya datang lewat ke pejabat - Sama ada ketidakpatuhan yang menuntut tersebut merupakan sebab yang adil untuk membuang kerja yang menuntut - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja yang menuntut adalah tanpa alasan atau sebab yang adil - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(3)
Peter Ng & Associate v. Mageswari Pan Gan
(Roslan Mat Nor) [2009] 3 ILR 460

Perkhidmatan yang tidak memuaskan - Sama ada yang menuntut diberitahu secara spesifik mengenainya - Sama ada responden telah memberikan amaran bertulis kepada yang menuntut - Kesannya - Sama ada yang menuntut mendapat bantuan atau bimbingan daripada responden - Kesannya - Sama ada responden telah mengalami kerugian kewangan akibat tindakan yang menuntut - Kesannya - Sama ada tindakan responden membuang kerja yang menuntut diambil secara terburu-buru - Kesannya - Sama ada salahlaku yang menuntut dibuktikan - Sama ada pembuangan kerja yang menuntut adalah tanpa alasan atau sebab yang adil - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(3)
Peter Ng & Associate v. Mageswari Pan Gan
(Roslan Mat Nor) [2009] 3 ILR 460

Salahlaku - Yang menuntut menjalankan aktiviti penjualan pakaian sewaktu kerja pejabat - Sama ada kegiatannya berada di dalam makluman responden - Tindakan yang diambil oleh responden - Kesannya - Sama ada salahlaku tersebut wajar dijadikan alasan untuk membuang kerja yang menuntut - Sama ada pembuangan kerja yang menuntut adalah tanpa alasan atau sebab yang adil - Akta Mahkamah Perhubungan 1967, s. 20(3)
Peter Ng & Associate v. Mageswari Pan Gan
(Roslan Mat Nor) [2009] 3 ILR 460

CASE OF THE WEEK

MEDAS CORPORATION BHD v. NOORMAWATI MOHD NAWI

DISMISSAL: Attendance - Lateness - Claimant reprimanded and warned verbally - Failing to improve - No written warnings given to claimant - Reasons why no written warnings had been given - Effect of - Whether it had been necessary for written warnings to be given - Position held by the claimant in the company - Effect of - Whether there had been a condonation of her misconduct by the company _ Factors to consider - Whether the company had proven the misconduct - Evidence adduced by the company - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)

DISMISSAL: Performance - Unsatisfactory performance - Claimant reprimanded and warned verbally - Claimant failing to improve - Claimant asked to resign - Refusing - No written warnings given to the claimant - Reasons why no written warnings had been given - Effect of - Whether written warnings had been necessary - Claimant's position in the company - Whether the misconduct had been proven by the company - Evidence relied on by the company - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)

DISMISSAL: Performance - Unsatisfactory performance - Claimant dismissed from the company - Claimant being paid termination benefits - Whether that had been a wise course of action - Effect of - Whether it had affected the allegation of misconduct brought by the company - Whether it had negated the claimant's misconduct - Effect of - Whether the termination by the company had been carried out bona fide - 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 - 2009 CLJ Legal Network Sdn Bhd (192353 V)
Email: enquiries@cljlaw.com Phone: 603-4270-5400 Fax No : 603-4270 5401 & 603-4270 5402