ILR_Bulletin_02

AWARD	PARTIES	PAGE
1317/2009	Harbir Kaur Gosal v. MINA Management Institute [Case No: 10/4-995/07]	[2010] 1 ILR 225
1377/2009	Krishnamoorthy Subramaniam v. Sutrasegi Sdn Bhd [Case No: 10/4-1734/07]	[2010] 1 ILR 245
1445/2009	VPC Alliance (JB) Sdn Bhd (Formerly Known As Vigers (JB) Sdn Bhd) v. Tan Hong Kiat [Case No: 2/4-2(29)(16)/4-2576/04]	[2010] 1 ILR 260
1480/2009	Thamil Selven Savarimuthu lwn. Vita Thermoplastics Compounds (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd [No. Kes: MP.1: 29/4-975/07]	[2010] 1 ILR 279
7/2010	Eden Enterprise (M) Berhad v. Thum Soon Yin [Case No. 2(21)/4-2266/04]	[2010] 1 ILR 301
24/2010	Intan Zafina A Rahman v. Power Cables Malaysia Sdn Bhd [Case No: 27/4-492/07]	[2010] 1 ILR 338
39/2010	Federal Auto Holdings Berhad & Another Company v. Md Mazlan Abd Halim [Case No: 10(23)(20)/4-851/05]	[2010] 1 ILR 358
40/2010	Lee Kok Ming lwn. Fast Flow Siphonic Sdn Bhd [No. Kes: 28/4-189/07]	[2010] 1 ILR 383
72/2010	Bujang Saat Buang v. Dexcel Sdn Bhd & Other Companies [Case No: 17(8)/4-2742/04]	[2010] 1 ILR 400
101/2010	Azahari Shahrom & Anor v. Associated Pan Malaysia Cement Sdn Bhd [Case No: 10/4-1632/05]	[2010] 1 ILR 423

Absenteeism - Claimant absent from work - Whether he had reasonable excuse for being absent from work - Whether he had informed the company of the reasons for his absence from work - Effect of - Whether the company had any specific rule on applications for leave - Whether proven by the company - Effect of - Whether it had constituted just cause to dismiss the claimant - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Krishnamoorthy Subramaniam v. Sutrasegi Sdn Bhd
(Fredrick Indran XA Nicholas) [2010] 1 ILR 245

Constructive dismissal - Change in job function - Conduct of the company towards the claimant - Whether it had amounted to a breach of the fundamental terms of the claimant’s contract of employment - Effect of - Whether proven by the claimant - Evidence adduced by the claimant - Whether he had discharged his burden of proving constructive dismissal - Effect of - Whether it had justified the claimant walking out of his employment - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Federal Auto Holdings Berhad & Another Company v. Md Mazlan Abd Halim
(Fredrick Indran XA Nicholas) [2010] 1 ILR 358

Constructive dismissal - Claimant being offered a new position by the company - Claimant rejecting and claiming constructive dismissal - Whether the new company’s offer of employment had merely been an offer - Whether the company’s new offer had breached a fundamental term of the claimant’s contract which had gone to the root of the contract - Effect of - Whether the claimant had been premature in claiming constructive dismissal - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Eden Enterprise (M) Berhad v. Thum Soon Yin
(Mariah Ahmad) [2010] 1 ILR 301

Constructive dismissal - Company taken over by a new company - Claimant resigning as the Director of the company but staying on during transition period to help out the new company - After the restructuring, claimant offered a position by the new company - Claimant rejecting - Claimant demanding reinstatement back to the position of Executive Director - Effect of - Company refusing - Claimant claiming constructive dismissal - Whether proven by the claimant - Whether the claimant had voluntarily resigned - Effect of - Whether there had been a dismissal - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Eden Enterprise (M) Berhad v. Thum Soon Yin
(Mariah Ahmad) [2010] 1 ILR 301

Constructive dismissal - Demotion - Claimant responding to CEO’s e-mail and copying it to other staff - Whether contents of the e-mail had been insubordinate to the CEO - Whether had contained derogatory statements - What constituted derogatory statements - Whether charge proven by the company - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether the claimant’s e-mail should have been looked at in isolation - Effect of - Claimant found guilty of charge and demoted - Claimant objecting to the demotion - Whether the demotion had been a breach of the fundamental terms of the claimant’s contract of employment - Effect of - Whether company’s actions had been bona fide - Whether the claimant had succeeded in proving constructive dismissal - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Intan Zafina A Rahman v. Power Cables Malaysia Sdn Bhd
(Mary Shakila Azariah) [2010] 1 ILR 338

Constructive dismissal - Demotion - Claimant replying to CEO’s e-mail and copying to other staff - Claimant issued a show cause letter - Claimant proffering an explanation - Company not accepting her explanation - Whether her explanation had been given full consideration by the company - Effect of - Previous record of the claimant in the company - Effect of - The claimant’s state of mind when she had sent the e-mails - Whether it had been pertinent - Whether the company had proven the charge against the claimant - Company’s actions - Whether fundamental breach of the contract of service by the company - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Intan Zafina A Rahman v. Power Cables Malaysia Sdn Bhd
(Mary Shakila Azariah) [2010] 1 ILR 338

Misconduct - Whether the claimants had restrained other company employees from going into work - Whether threats had been used against the other employees of the company - Evidence adduced by the company - Whether it had proven the claimants misconduct - Effect of - Whether the company witnesses had discharged the company’s burden of proof and proven the charges - Whether the company’s trust and confidence in the claimants had been betrayed due to their conduct - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Azahari Shahrom & Anor v. Associated Pan Malaysia Cement Sdn Bhd
(Fredrick Indran XA Nicholas) [2010] 1 ILR 423

Notice of termination - Forced resignation - Claimant resigning and subsequently withdrawing his resignation letter - Effect of - Whether it showed the claimant’s state of mind and intentions - Whether the claimant’s resignation had been obtained under undue influence, coercion or force - Whether forced resignation had been proven by the claimant - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
VPC Alliance (JB) Sdn Bhd (Formerly Known As Vigers (JB) Sdn Bhd)v. Tan Hong Kiat
(Mariah Ahmad) [2010] 1 ILR 260

Notice of termination - Forced resignation - Whether proven by the claimant - Claimant had secured a job with another company before tendering his resignation - Effect of - Whether the job at the other company coupled with the company’s warning letter had prompted the claimant to tender his resignation - Effect of - Claimant subsequently withdrawing his resignation - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
VPC Alliance (JB) Sdn Bhd (Formerly Known As Vigers (JB) Sdn Bhd) v. Tan Hong Kiat
(Mariah Ahmad) [2010] 1 ILR 260

Notice of termination - Summary termination - No reasons stated for the termination - Contention that claimant’s services no longer required by the hiring company - Whether that had been sufficient reason to terminate the claimant from service - Effect of - Whether the claimant had had a legitimate expectation to work for the company until the expiry of his employment contract - Whether the termination of his contract had constituted a fundamental breach of the terms of his employment - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Bujang Saat Buang v. Dexcel Sdn Bhd & Other Companies
(P Iruthayaraj D Pappusamy) [2010] 1 ILR 400

Notice of termination - Summary termination - Whether it had been pursuant to the terms of the Employment Contract - Whether the clauses in the Employment Contract had been meant to contract out of s. 20 of the Industrial Relations Act - Whether null and void as a result thereof - Effect of - Whether the company had breached the terms of its Employment Contract with the claimant - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Bujang Saat Buang v. Dexcel Sdn Bhd & Other Companies
(P Iruthayaraj D Pappusamy) [2010] 1 ILR 400

Performance - Poor performance - Whether proven by the company - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
VPC Alliance (JB) Sdn Bhd (Formerly Known As Vigers (JB) Sdn Bhd) v. Tan Hong Kiat
(Mariah Ahmad) [2010] 1 ILR 260

Performance - Unsatisfactory performance - Claimant given a warning and show cause letter - Claimant failing to improve - Effect of - Conduct of the company - Whether the company had behaved reasonably towards the claimant - Whether the company’s actions had been bona fide - Whether the claimant’s misconduct had been serious - Factors to consider - Whether the misconduct had been proven by the company - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Harbir Kaur Gosal v. MINA Management Institute
(Fredrick Indran XA Nicholas) [2010] 1 ILR 225

Probationer - Claimant given show cause letter whilst on probation - Whether she had improved in her performance - Claimant terminated at the end of her probationary period - Reasons adduced by the company - Whether the company had managed to prove the reasons - Effect of - Whether the company’s actions had been bona fide - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Harbir Kaur Gosal v. MINA Management Institute
(Fredrick Indran XA Nicholas) [2010] 1 ILR 225

Secondment - Claimant entering into contract of employment with the company but seconded to third party company - Claimant not privy to agreement between the company and the third party company - Effect of - Third party company having control over the claimant - Whether the third party company had been the claimant’s employer – Factors to consider - Effect of - Who had terminated the claimant - Who had effectively been the claimant’s employer - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Bujang Saat Buang v. Dexcel Sdn Bhd & Other Companies
(P Iruthayaraj D Pappusamy) [2010] 1 ILR 400

Secondment - Claimant seconded to third party company - Whether secondment had been a contract for service or a contract of service - Factors to consider - Effect of - Degree of control exercised - Whether the claimant had come within the definition of workman under the Act - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Bujang Saat Buang v. Dexcel Sdn Bhd & Other Companies
(P Iruthayaraj D Pappusamy) [2010] 1 ILR 400

Victimization - Whether proven by the claimants - Claimants were members of the union - Whether they had been victimized due to their union participation - Evidence adduced by the claimants - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Azahari Shahrom & Anor v. Associated Pan Malaysia Cement Sdn Bhd
(Fredrick Indran XA Nicholas) [2010] 1 ILR 423

Procedural impropriety - Claimant not given an opportunity to face and challenge her accusers - Claimant not given an opportunity to challenge the evidence against her - Company not calling witnesses at the DI - Effect of - Whether the rules of natural justice had been complied with - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Intan Zafina A Rahman v. Power Cables Malaysia Sdn Bhd
(Mary Shakila Azariah) [2010] 1 ILR 338

Procedural impropriety - Whether it had been defective - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether the findings had been biased - Who had conducted the inquiry - Whether the proceedings had been fatally flawed - Effect of - Whether the DI had been valid - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Krishnamoorthy Subramaniam v. Sutrasegi Sdn Bhd
(Fredrick Indran XA Nicholas) [2010] 1 ILR 245

Documentary evidence - Findings of the DI - Whether the notes of proceedings had been accurate - Whether the maker of the notes had been called - Effect of - Claimant signing notes of proceedings - Whether that had been sufficient to prove that it had been accurate - Handwritten notes not produced for comparison - Effect of - Whether the rules of natural justice had been complied with - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Intan Zafina A Rahman v. Power Cables Malaysia Sdn Bhd
(Mary Shakila Azariah) [2010] 1 ILR 338

Witness - Claimant’s witness - Whether her testimony should be viewed with circumspection - Whether the witness had had an axe to grind with the company - Effect of - Whether the claimant’s case had been bona fide - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Harbir Kaur Gosal v. MINA Management Institute
(Fredrick Indran XA Nicholas) [2010] 1 ILR 225

Remedies - Backwages - Computation of - Fluctuation of the claimants monthly salary - Effect of - How to determine the simulated average monthly salary of the claimant - Formula used - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Krishnamoorthy Subramaniam v. Sutrasegi Sdn Bhd
(Fredrick Indran XA Nicholas) [2010] 1 ILR 245

Remedies - Compensation - Whether should be awarded - Determination of - Whether allowances should be included - Factors to consider - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Bujang Saat Buang v. Dexcel Sdn Bhd & Other Companies
(P Iruthayaraj D Pappusamy) [2010] 1 ILR 400

Remedies - Reinstatement - Claimant engaged on a tentative contract basis - Whether reinstatement would be the appropriate remedy - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Bujang Saat Buang v. Dexcel Sdn Bhd & Other Companies
(P Iruthayaraj D Pappusamy) [2010] 1 ILR 400

Adverse inference - Sama ada terpakai - Saksi-saksi responden - Sama ada responden telah mengemukakan saksi-saksi yang material untuk membuktikan kesnya terhadap YM - Kesannya - Siapa yang sepatutnya dikemukakan oleh responden sebagai saksi - Kesannya - Akta Keterangan 1950, s. 114(g)
Thamil Selven Savarimuthu lwn. Vita Thermoplastics Compounds(Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
(Samsudin Hassan) [2010] 1 ILR 279

Saksi-saksi - Kata-dengar - Sama ada boleh diterima sebagai keterangan - Keterangan COW1 - Sama ada beliau mempunyai pengetahuan peribadi mengenai perjumpaan yang berlaku antara MD dan YM - Kesannya - Akta Keterangan 1950, s. 60
Thamil Selven Savarimuthu lwn. Vita Thermoplastics Compounds (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
(Samsudin Hassan) [2010] 1 ILR 279

Saksi - Sama ada keterangan saksi syarikat cukup untuk membuktikan salahlaku YM - Sama ada salahlaku tersebut cuma merupakan tanggapan syarikat semata-mata - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan atas alasan yang adil dan bersebab - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Lee Kok Ming lwn. Fast Flow Siphonic Sdn Bhd
(Roslan Mat Nor) [2010] 1 ILR 383

Ketidakpatuhan terhadap polisi syarikat - Pengingkaran kewajipan fidusiari - Sama ada YM telah mensabotaj syarikat - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Sama ada mencukupi untuk membuktikan salahlaku YM - Kesannya - Sama ada perhubungan antara majikan dan pekerja telah terjejas - Kesannya - Sama ada tindakan syarikat membuang kerja YM adalah munasabah - Apa yang seharusnya dilakukan oleh syarikat - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan atas alasan yang adil dan bersebab - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Lee Kok Ming lwn. Fast Flow Siphonic Sdn Bhd
(Roslan Mat Nor) [2010] 1 ILR 383

Notis penamatan kerja - Perletakan jawatan secara paksa - Sama ada responden mempunyai niat untuk membuang kerja YM sebelum beliau meletak jawatan - Sama ada responden merasa tertekan semasa meletak jawatan - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Perlakuan responden - Sama ada sejajar dengan keharmonian perjanjian pekerjaan dengan YM - Kesannya - Sama ada YM dipaksa untuk meletak jawatan - Kelakuan YM selepas meletak jawatan - YM membuat rayuan kepada responden - Rayuannya ditolak - Sama ada responden telah bertindak secara munasabah - Keterangan YM - Sama ada "contract test" dipenuhi - Kesannya - Sama ada YM berjaya membuktikan bahawa beliau dipaksa meletak jawatan - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan dengan alasan yang adil dan bersebab - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Thamil Selven Savarimuthu lwn. Vita Thermoplastics Compounds (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
(Samsudin Hassan) [2010] 1 ILR 279

Ketiadaan - Sama ada prosidur siasatan awal yang dijalankan oleh responden adalah munasabah - Kesannya - Sama ada YM didengari secara adil - Tiada alasan yang dikemukakan oleh responden sebabnya DI gagal dijalankan - Sama ada siasatan awal yang dijalankan oleh responden dapat disamakan dengan DI - Kesannya - Sama ada siasatan awal yang dijalankan oleh responden berat sebelah - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan secara adil dan bersebab - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Thamil Selven Savarimuthu lwn. Vita Thermoplastics Compounds (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
(Samsudin Hassan) [2010] 1 ILR 279