ILR Bulletin, Issue 2009, Vol 12
December 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 12 of 2009

AWARDS REPORTED

SUBJECT INDEX

ADMINSTRATIVE LAW

Remedies - Certiorari, application for - To quash award of Industrial Court - Whether court’s findings reasonable and fair on substantial merits of the case - Whether company justified in terminating applicant - Whether application for judicial review dismissed
Tan Poh Thiam v. Nestle Products Sdn Bhd
(Hue Siew Kheng JC) [2009] 4 ILR 453

Rules of natural justice - Domestic discipline - Exercise of administrative powers - Dismissal of employee - Officer framing charge against appellant present at inquiry - Failure by Disciplinary Board to give grounds for dismissal - Whether in breach of rules of natural justice - Whether dismissal void
Ah Moi v. Tenaga Nasional Bhd
(Denis Ong JCA, Hashim Yusoff JCA & Arifin Jaka JCA) [2009] 4 ILR 445

DISMISSAL

Absenteeism - Claimant absent from work for 3 consecutive days without leave - Whether proven by the company - Evidence adduced by the company - Effect of - Breach of the claimant’s terms of employment - Reasons for absence - Whether acceptable - Effect of - Whether it had gone to the root of the contract - Whether it had constituted a fundamental breach of the claimant’s contract - Effect of - Whether there had been a dismissal - Whether dismissal had been with just cause and excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Maee Anak Dayot v. Perkhidmatan Rimba
(Gabriel Gumis) [2009] 4 ILR 618

Absenteeism - Claimant allegedly absent from work without leave - Whether proven by the respondent - Evidence adduced by the respondent - Whether it had been sufficient - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Dynamic Telecommunication v. Yap Kem Fung
(Eddie Yeo Soon Chye) [2009] 4 ILR 629

Absenteeism - Claimant going on medical leave - Claimant failing to submit his medical certificates to the respondent - Effect of - Whether it constituted a misconduct - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
K Rudraa Kumar S Kanagaratnam v. Zuri Services Sdn Bhd
(Eddie Yeo Soon Chye) [2009] 4 ILR 584

Absenteeism - Reasons adduced by the claimant - Company failing to renew road tax of lorry - Company aware of expiry of road tax - Claimant receiving 2 summonses - Effect of - Whether the company had provided the claimant with a workable tool to perform his job - Effect of - Whether the company had breached a fundamental term of the claimant’s contract of employment - Effect of - Whether there had been a dismissal - Whether dismissal had been with just cause and excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Maee Anak Dayot v. Perkhidmatan Rimba
(Gabriel Gumis) [2009] 4 ILR 618

Bad language - Claimant alleging bad language and racial slurs used by her colleagues against her - Reporting to the company - Whether the company had investigated the matter - Claimant not part of the investigation - Effect of - Whether it had been necessary for the claimant to be a part of the investigation - Whether it had justified the claimant walking out of her employment - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Selvarani M Narayanasamy v. Nittsu Transport Service (M) Sdn Bhd
(Jalaldin Hussain) [2009] 4 ILR 524

Bad language - Claimant alleging bad language and racial slur used by her colleagues against her - Claimant writing to the company - Company failing to respond - Reasons for company’s failure to respond - Whether acceptable - Whether claimant had managed to prove her allegations - Evidence adduced by the company and the claimant - Which was preferable - Effect of - Whether it had justified the claimant walking our of her employment - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Selvarani M Narayanasamy v. Nittsu Transport Service (M) Sdn Bhd
(Jalaldin Hussain) [2009] 4 ILR 524

Constructive dismissal - Claimant cited for misconduct - Claimant directed to withhold salary of employee but no directions given about statutory contributions - Claimant making statutory contributions as per past practice - Employee subsequently walking out on constructive dismissal - Claimant blamed for overpayment re statutory contributions - Effect of - Whether it had been claimant’s sole fault - Whether other parties had been involved in the mistake - Effect of - Claimant’s position in the company - Effect of - Conduct of company - Whether it had constituted a fundamental breach of terms of employment - Whether justified claimant deeming herself constructively dismissed - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Lim Lee Chang v. China Airlines
(Yamuna Menon) [2009] 4 ILR 461

Constructive dismissal - Claimant cited for misconduct - Claimant’s misconduct put up on the company’s notice board - Whether it had been a past practice of the company - Claimant objecting to it - Informing company of her objections - Company not paying any heed - Effect of - Whether it had constituted a fundamental breach of terms of employment - Whether justified claimant deeming herself constructively dismissed - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Lim Lee Chang v. China Airlines
(Yamuna Menon) [2009] 4 ILR 461

Constructive dismissal - Claimant cited for misconduct - Company unilaterally deducting her salary - Claimant objecting - Company not paying any heed - Effect of - Whether it had constituted a fundamental breach of terms of employment - Whether it had destroyed the relationship of trust and confidence between the parties - Whether justified claimant deeming herself constructively dismissed - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Lim Lee Chang v. China Airlines
(Yamuna Menon) [2009] 4 ILR 461

Constructive dismissal - Transfer - Claimant re-transferred back to position of Receptionist - No change to her terms and conditions of service - Whether the company had the prerogative to transfer the claimant - Whether the company had acted mala fide in carrying out the transfer - Effect of - Intention of the company in transferring the claimant - Factors to consider - Effect of - Claimant walking out of her employment - Whether that had been justified - Whether the transfer had constituted a fundamental breach of the claimant’s terms and conditions of service - Whether a claim for constructive dismissal had been proven - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Selvarani M Narayanasamy v. Nittsu Transport Service (M) Sdn Bhd
(Jalaldin Hussain) [2009] 4 ILR 524

Constructive dismissal - Transfer - Claimant transferred from position of Receptionist to Purchasing Clerk - No change to her terms and conditions of service save and except for her job functions - Whether it had constituted a promotion - Effect of - Claimant subsequently re-transferred back to the position of Receptionist - Again no change to the terms and conditions of her service save and except for her job functions - Whether that had constituted a demotion - Effect of - Whether it constituted a fundamental breach of her 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)
Selvarani M Narayanasamy v. Nittsu Transport Service (M) Sdn Bhd
(Jalaldin Hussain) [2009] 4 ILR 524

Constructive dismissal - Whether the claimant had managed to prove - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Claimant walking out a few months after breach by the company - Reasons for the delay - Whether it had been acceptable - Whether the delay had constituted a waiver of the company’s breach - Whether the claimant had given notice to the company of his intention to walk out - Effect of - Whether the company had breached a fundamental term of the claimant’s contract - Effect of - Whether there had been a dismissal - Whether dismissal had been with just cause and excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Maee Anak Dayot v. Perkhidmatan Rimba
(Gabriel Gumis) [2009] 4 ILR 618

Misconduct - Claimant failing to follow transfer order and making inappropriate remarks against management amongst other things - Claimant put on suspension but refusing to comply - Whether his refusal to go on suspension which had culminated in his dismissal by the respondent before the inquiry could be held had shown that he had not been interested in defending himself at the inquiry - Whether the respondent had assumed wrongly - Effect of - Whether suspension and the need to convene a domestic inquiry could be linked and viewed together - Whether the claimant had been denied natural justice - Effect of - Whether the company had managed to prove the misconduct against the claimant - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Wong Sie Ping v. Bata Marketing Sdn Bhd
(Muniandy Kannyappan) [2009] 4 ILR 485

Misconduct - Claimant failing to keep in communication with the respondent company - Respondent company specifically asking for communications to be open between claimant and them at all times vide a memo - Whether the claimant had been aware of the memo - Effect of - Whether claimant’s conduct had amounted to a defiance of the respondent’s instructions - Effect of - Whether the respondent had managed to establish the misconduct against the claimant - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
K Rudraa Kumar S Kanagaratnam v. Zuri Services Sdn Bhd
(Eddie Yeo Soon Chye) [2009] 4 ILR 584

Misconduct - Claimant terminated from respondent’s service before domestic inquiry convened - Effect of - Whether the respondent’s actions had been inappropriate and inequitable - Effect of - Whether the respondent’s reliance on a clause in the shop managers agreement had been an afterthought - Effect of - Factors to consider - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Wong Sie Ping v. Bata Marketing Sdn Bhd
(Muniandy Kannyappan) [2009] 4 ILR 485

Misconduct - Whether proven by the respondent company - Claimant unilaterally terminated by respondent company - Whether respondent company had shown mala fide intent - Whether the respondent company’s actions had been impulsive - Claimant dismissed before the domestic inquiry was convened - Effect of - Whether it had been a mere technical breach - Whether it had gone to the root of the contract of employment - Effect of - Obligations of parties to a contract of employment - Whether it had been adhered to - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Wong Sie Ping v. Bata Marketing Sdn Bhd
(Muniandy Kannyappan) [2009] 4 ILR 485

Notice of termination - Oral resignation by the claimant - Whether proven by the respondent company - Effect of - Who can accept an employees resignation and who cannot - Whether the claimant’s alleged oral resignation had been accepted by the respondent - Effect of - Whether the claimant had resigned or had been dismissed - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Dynamic Telecommunication v. Yap Kem Fung
(Eddie Yeo Soon Chye) [2009] 4 ILR 629

DOMESTIC INQUIRY

Procedural impropriety - Claimant dismissed before inquiry held - Whether the claimant had been denied natural justice - Effect of - Whether the procedural unfairness could in itself be a good ground for allowing the claimant’s claim - Court of equity and good conscience - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Wong Sie Ping v. Bata Marketing Sdn Bhd
(Muniandy Kannyappan) [2009] 4 ILR 485

INDUSTRIAL COURT

Remedies - Backwages - Whether a deduction should be made for the payment of the summonses made by the company - Factors to consider - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Maee Anak Dayot v. Perkhidmatan Rimba
(Gabriel Gumis) [2009] 4 ILR 618

Remedies - Compensation - Backwages - How calculated - Factors to consider - Whether there had been contributory conduct on the claimant’s part - What would be a reasonable percentage to deduct - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Wong Sie Ping v. Bata Marketing Sdn Bhd
(Muniandy Kannyappan) [2009] 4 ILR 485

Remedies - Compensation - Compensation in lieu of reinstatement - Whether suitable to be awarded - Contributory conduct on the part of the claimant - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Wong Sie Ping v. Bata Marketing Sdn Bhd
(Muniandy Kannyappan) [2009] 4 ILR 485

Remedies - Compensation in lieu of reinstatement - Claimant working for less than a year - Whether compensation under this head had been appropriate to award - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Maee Anak Dayot v. Perkhidmatan Rimba
(Gabriel Gumis) [2009] 4 ILR 618

Remedies - Punishment - Contributory conduct of claimant - Evidence that claimant had been rude and negative to her superior - Effect of - Whether it should be taken into account in awarding compensation - Effect of - Factors to consider - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Lim Lee Chang v. China Airlines
(Yamuna Menon) [2009] 4 ILR 461

TRADE DISPUTE

Collective Agreement - Commencement date - Parties had entered into collective agreement five years consecutively - Effect of - Whether commencement date of collective agreement was to take effect immediately upon expiry of last collective agreement - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 26(2) & 30(7)
Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-pekerja Perdagangan v. Kumpulan O’Connor’s (M) Sdn Bhd
(Franklin Goonting) [2009] 4 ILR 641

Collective Agreement - Duration of - Can it be extended beyond 3 years - Provisions under the Act - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 14(2)(b)
Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-pekerja Perdagangan v. Kumpulan O’Connor’s (M) Sdn Bhd
(Franklin Goonting) [2009] 4 ILR 641

Collective Agreement - Terms and conditions - Annual leave - Whether annual leave should be allowed to be carried forward by the employee for pilgrimage purposes - Company currently allowing such a practice - Effect of - Whether such a practice should be reduced into writing - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 26(2) & 30(5)
Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-pekerja Perdagangan v. Kumpulan O’Connor’s (M) Sdn Bhd
(Franklin Goonting) [2009] 4 ILR 641

Collective Agreement - Terms and conditions - Bonus payments - Whether a performance based system would be a better model to use - Factors to consider - Effect of - The low fixed bonus quantum distribution proposal - What it was - Whether it would reflect the true essence of a performance bonus payout - Whether a pro-rated bonus payment should be paid to employees who leave the company - Factors to consider - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 26(2) & 30(5)
Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-pekerja Perdagangan v. Kumpulan O’Connor’s (M) Sdn Bhd
(Franklin Goonting) [2009] 4 ILR 641

Collective Agreement - Terms and conditions - COLA - Adjustment of COLA in accordance with salary adjustments - Whether it ran contrary to wage revision principles - How to distinguish mediocre performers from outstanding ones - Factors to consider - What model should be used - Effect of - Factors to consider - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 26(2) & 30(5)
Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-pekerja Perdagangan v. Kumpulan O’Connor’s (M) Sdn Bhd
(Franklin Goonting) [2009] 4 ILR 641

Collective Agreement - Terms and conditions - Medical benefits - Company seeking to cap such benefits - Whether it was necessary to monitor and manage staff expense - Effect of - Factors to consider - What the company should instead do - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 26(2)
Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-pekerja Perdagangan v. Kumpulan O’Connor’s (M) Sdn Bhd
(Franklin Goonting) [2009] 4 ILR 641

Collective Agreement - Terms and conditions - Promotion of technical staff - Whether they should be put on probation for a longer period of time - Whether technical staff had a higher responsibility compared to clerical staff - Effect of - Factors to consider - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 26(2) & 30(5)
Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-pekerja Perdagangan v. Kumpulan O’Connor’s (M) Sdn Bhd
(Franklin Goonting) [2009] 4 ILR 641

Collective Agreement - Terms and conditions - Salary structure and annual increments - Whether it should be based on a PLWS system - What is a PWLS system - Effect of - Factors to consider - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 26(2) & 30(5)
Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-pekerja Perdagangan v. Kumpulan O’Connor’s (M) Sdn Bhd
(Franklin Goonting) [2009] 4 ILR 641

Collective Agreement - Terms and conditions - Staff advances - Company seeking to lower the statutory capping - Whether it had been necessary - Factors to consider - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 26(2) and Employment Act 1955, s. 24(8)
Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-pekerja Perdagangan v. Kumpulan O’Connor’s (M) Sdn Bhd
(Franklin Goonting) [2009] 4 ILR 641

KETERANGAN

Keterangan bertulis - Dapatan notis siasatan dalaman - Sama ada YM telah dipaksa menurunkan tandatangannya ke atas dapatan notis siasatan dalaman - Tandatangan YM di setiap helaian dapatan notis siasatan dalaman tersebut - Kesannya - Sama ada kesahihan nota keterangan tersebut dipertikaikan oleh YM - Sama ada DI tersebut telah mengikut prinsip keadilan semulajadi - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967
Ibrahim Yasin lwn. Rangkaian Pengangkutan Integrasi Deras (RAPID)
(Roslan Mat Nor) [2009] 4 ILR 502

MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN

Bidangkuasa - YM enggan ditempatkan dalam pekerjaannya semula - Sama ada YM mempunyai hak untuk membuat pilihan sedemikian - Faktor-faktor yang perlu dipertimbangkan - Sama ada mahkamah mempunyai bidangkuasa untuk mendengar kes ini memandangkan YM enggan ditempatkan di dalam pekerjaannya semula - Apa yang perlu dibuat oleh YM - Kesannya - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) and 30(6)
Bukit Ritan Realty Sdn Bhd lwn. Doris Melanie Perayasamy Sinaya
(Hamdan Indah) [2009] 4 ILR 658

Remedi - Hukuman yang dikenakan terhadap YM - Sama ada terlalu serius memandangkan jenis salah laku - Harapan responden terhadap pekerjanya dalam industri perbankan - Sama ada dipenuhi oleh YM - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja adalah tanpa alasan atau sebab yang adil - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(3)
Bumiputra Commerce Bank Berhad lwn. Harianto Effendy Zakaria & Yang Lain
(Kamaruzaman Ab Jalil) [2009] 4 ILR 563

PEMBUANGAN KERJA

Ketidakturutan - Jawatan yang dipegang oleh YM - Tanggungjawab YM di dalam jawatannya - Kesannya - Responden meminta YM mengambil tindakan yang bercanggah dengan tanggungjawab YM dalam jawatannya - YM tidak mematuhi arahan majikannya dan melaporkan kepada pihak berkuasa - Sama ada tindakan YM melaporkan kepada pihak berkuasa adalah wajar - Kesannya - Sama ada YM mempunyai niat yang jahat - Sama ada YM telah tidak mematuhi arahan majikannya - Sama ada arahan majikannya adalah mengikut undang-undang - Sama ada responden mempunyai pengetahuan bahawa arahan mereka menyalahi undang-undang - Kesannya - Keterangan yang dikemukakan oleh responden - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM adalah tanpa sebab yang adil dan munasabah - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967 & Akta Keselamatan dan Kesihatan Pekerjaan 1994, s. 27
Azizan Yahya lwn. L & T - ECC Construction (M) Sdn Bhd
(Roslan Mat Nor) [2009] 4 ILR 596

Pekerja percubaan - Sama ada YM disahkan di dalam jawatannya - Kesannya - Sama ada pekerja percubaan mempunyai hak yang sama seperti pekerja tetap - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM adalah tanpa sebab yang adil dan munasabah - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(3)
Azizan Yahya lwn. L & T - ECC Construction (M) Sdn Bhd
(Roslan Mat Nor) [2009] 4 ILR 596

Salahlaku - Pemiketan - Sama ada YM terlibat di dalam piket - Sama ada piket tersebut dilakukan secara sah - Faktor-faktor yang harus dipertimbangkan - Sama ada piket tersebut telah menggangu perniagaan dan aktiviti responden - Kesannya - Sama ada responden berjaya membuktikan salah laku YM - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM adalah tanpa alasan atau sebab yang adil - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(3)
Bumiputra Commerce Bank Berhad lwn. Harianto Effendy Zakaria & Yang Lain
(Kamaruzaman Ab Jalil) [2009] 4 ILR 563

Salahlaku - YM gagal untuk mengeluarkan tiket kepada penumpang dan gagal untuk mengutip tambang yang sepatutnya - Sama ada syarikat berjaya membuktikannya - Keterangan yang dikemukakan oleh syarikat - Sama ada mencukupi - Kesannya - YM menyangkal telah melakukan salahlaku tersebut - Sama ada keterangan YM telah diberikan pertimbangan yang sewajarnya - Sama ada syarikat berjaya membuktikan salahlaku YM - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM adalah tanpa alasan atau sebab yang adil - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(3)
Ibrahim Yasin lwn. Rangkaian Pengangkutan Integrasi Deras (RAPID)
(Roslan Mat Nor) [2009] 4 ILR 502

Salahlaku - YM gagal untuk merepot diri untuk tugasan - YM mendakwa bahawa beliau telah dilayan dengan buruk - Sama ada dibuktikan oleh YM - Kesannya - Sama ada salahlaku YM dibuktikan - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM adalah tanpa alasan atau sebab yang adil - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(3)
Bukit Ritan Realty Sdn Bhd lwn. Doris Melanie Perayasamy Sinaya
(Hamdan Indah) [2009] 4 ILR 658

SIASATAN DALAMAN

Kesilapan prosidur - Pertuduhan yang dikenakan ke atas YM - Sama ada mengandungi kecacatan - Kesannya - Kandungan pertuduhan - Sama ada memadai - Sama ada prinsip keadilan asasi telah dipatuhi - Faktor-faktor yang harus dipertimbangkan - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967
Bumiputra Commerce Bank Berhad lwn. Harianto Effendy Zakaria & Yang Lain
(Kamaruzaman Ab Jalil) [2009] 4 ILR 563

Kesilapan prosidur - Sama ada YM telah dibenarkan untuk menyoal balas saksi - Tiada catatan di dalam nota prosiding - Kesannya - Sama ada DI yang dijalankan adalah teratur - Sama ada DI telah dijalankan mengikut prinsip keadilan semulajadi - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967
Ibrahim Yasin lwn. Rangkaian Pengangkutan Integrasi Deras (RAPID)
(Roslan Mat Nor) [2009] 4 ILR 502

Pertuduhan - Pindaan telah dibuat oleh syarikat terhadap syit pertuduhan - Pindaan kepada tarikh - Kesannya - Sama ada pindaan tersebut telah menjadikan DI lebih teratur - Sama ada DI telah dijalankan mengikut prinsip keadilan dan semulajadi - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967
Ibrahim Yasin lwn. Rangkaian Pengangkutan Integrasi Deras (RAPID)
(Roslan Mat Nor) [2009] 4 ILR 502

Pertuduhan - Pindaan telah dibuat oleh syarikat terhadap syit pertuduhan - Pindaan kepada jumlah penumpang dan nilai tiket - Kesannya - Sama ada pindaan tersebut melibatkan intipati pertuduhan - Sama ada YM sepatutnya diberitahu lebih awal mengenai pindaan tersebut untuk membolehkannya menjawab pertuduhan tersebut - Kesan kelewatan pemakluman pindaan tersebut kepada YM - Sama ada DI telah dijalankan mengikut prinsip keadilan semulajadi - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967
Ibrahim Yasin lwn. Rangkaian Pengangkutan Integrasi Deras (RAPID)
(Roslan Mat Nor) [2009] 4 ILR 502

CASE OF THE WEEK

ROYAL SUNGEI UJONG CLUB v. VIJAYSANKAR ARUMUGAM

DISMISSAL: Misconduct - Misrepresentation - Claimant misrepresenting his qualifications in order to secure the job - Effect of - Whether the club had relied on the misrepresentations - Effect of - Whether the club had proven the misconduct against the claimant - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)

DISMISSAL: Misconduct - Misrepresentation - What constitutes misrepresentation - Whether the claimant's actions had constituted misrepresentation - Effect of - Whether the charges had been proven against the claimant - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)

The club had employed the claimant as a Club Manager for a fixed term of 2 years. At the expiry of the 2-year term, his contract had been extended for a further period of 2 years and he had been given an increase in his salary. In September 2003, the club discovered that the claimant had been dishonest about his qualifications when he had applied for the position of club manager. The claimant was issued a show cause letter, which he duly replied to but the club found his explanation to be unsatisfactory and the claimant was subsequently suspended with full pay. A Domestic Inquiry ('DI') was held and 2 charges were levelled against the claimant. At the conclusion of the DI, the claimant was found guilty of both the charges and terminated from service. The claimant contended that his dismissal had been without just cause and excuse. There were 3 main issues that arose for determination before this court. The first was whether the claimant had dishonestly misrepresented his qualifications in his application form, the second was, in the event that there had been a dishonest misrepresentation by the claimant, whether the club had been induced and had relied upon the said misrepresentation when it had given the claimant the job and the last was whether there had been any condonation by the club.

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