ILR_Bulletin_04

AWARD	PARTIES	PAGE
	Dynamic Plantations Bhd v. YB Menteri Sumber Manusia & Anor [Civil Appeals Nos: 01(f)-8-2008(W) & 01(f)-7-2008(W)]	[2010] 2 ILR 1
231/2010	Saravanan Parasuraman v. Nordenia-Thong Fook (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd [Case No: 10/4-1212/06]	[2010] 2 ILR 16
233/2010	Ruyati Adanan & Anor v. Etika Insurance Bhd [Case No: 27(7)/4-464/04]	[2010] 2 ILR 36
262/2010	Muhammad Wafa Nokman lwn. BMW Asia Technology Centre Sdn Bhd [No. Kes: 28/4-2345/07]	[2010] 2 ILR 48
274/2010	Mohanbabu Ramadoo lwn. C & P Asia Sdn Bhd [No. Kes: 28/4-2815/06]	[2010] 2 ILR 74
287/2010	Subramaniam Krishnasamy v. Tesco Stores (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd [Case No: 25(21)/4-2557/04]	[2010] 2 ILR 88
289/2010	Kathiresan Alfred v. City-Link Express (M) Sdn Bhd [Case No: 2/4-427/05]	[2010] 2 ILR 108
292/2010	Persatuan Kakitangan Eksekutif Sistem Penerbangan Malaysia v. Sistem Penerbangan Malaysia Berhad [Case No: 3(11)/3-444/08]	[2010] 2 ILR 129
312/2010	Malayan Law Journal Sdn Bhd v. Pook Li Ping [Case No: 13/4-1314/2004]	[2010] 2 ILR 140
318/2010	Jamil Elias lwn. Mutiara Johor Bahru [No. Kes: 2(29)(16)/4-1190/05]	[2010] 2 ILR 155
322/2010	Mafiza Mustafa v. Shima Electronic Industri (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd [Case No: 2(29)(16)/4-1386/05]	[2010] 2 ILR 173
341/2010	Lee Nyet Choi v. Naza Kia Services Sdn Bhd [Case No: 27(1)(4)/4-1638/07]	[2010] 2 ILR 187
345/2010	Thavaratnam Thambipillay v. Om Education Sdn Bhd [Case No: 3/4-1850/06]	[2010] 2 ILR 201

Type of - Genuine fixed term contract - Claimant’s contract coming to an end and not renewed - Claimant’s colleagues contracts extended - Age of claimant’s colleagues - Positions held by them - Whether a comparison should be made with them - Effect of - Whether the respondent’s actions had been bona fide - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Thavaratnam Thambipillay v. Om Education Sdn Bhd
(Franklin Goonting) [2010] 2 ILR 201

Type of - Whether it had been a genuine fixed term contract - Effect of - Claimant contractually retired at 60 - Claimant given independent one-year contracts for 5 years thereafter pursuant to terms of letter of appointment - Claimant fulfilling conditions of employment - Subsequently the respondent not renewing the claimant’s contract - Reasons for the same - Whether the respondent’s actions had been bona fide - Factors to consider - Whether the claimant had been terminated - Whether it had been an ending of a fixed term contract - Evidence adduced - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Thavaratnam Thambipillay v. Om Education Sdn Bhd
(Franklin Goonting) [2010] 2 ILR 201

Attendance - Lateness - Claimant late for work on numerous occasions during her probationary period - Claimant counselled and given warnings - Claimant failing to improve - Effect of - Company dismissing the claimant - 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)
Mafiza Mustafa v. Shima Electronic Industri (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
(Mariah Ahmad) [2010] 2 ILR 173

Breach of company rules and policies - Claimants circulating office e-mails to friends - Whether it had been in contravention of the company’s Employees Guidelines and Code - Whether there had been such a thing as an Employees Guideline and Code - Company failing to adduce it at the hearing - 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)
Ruyati Adanan & Anor v. Etika Insurance Bhd
(Mary Shakila Azariah) [2010] 2 ILR 36

Constructive dismissal - Transfer - Two letters of employment executed - Two separate transfer clauses - Whether the transfer clause in the second letter of appointment had revoked the transfer clause in the first letter of appointment - Contents of the transfer clauses - Effect of - Conditions upon which the claimant could be transferred - Whether such conditions had existed - Whether the company had committed a fundamental breach that had gone to the root of the 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)
Kathiresan Alfred v. City-Link Express (M) Sdn Bhd
(Mariah Ahmad) [2010] 2 ILR 108

Constructive dismissal - Transfer - Whether it had been due to the claimant’s activities in the union - Evidence adduced by the claimant - Whether rebutted by the company - Effect of - Whether the company’s actions had been bona fide - 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)
Kathiresan Alfred v. City-Link Express (M) Sdn Bhd
(Mariah Ahmad) [2010] 2 ILR 108

Constructive dismissal - Transfer - Whether the claimant’s transfer had been to meet the needs of the organization - Whether the company had displayed a mala fide intent by their actions - Whether the claimant’s transfer had effectively been a demotion - Effect of - Whether the claimant had delayed in leaving the company - Whether the company had committed a fundamental breach that had gone to the root of the contract of employment - 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)
Kathiresan Alfred v. City-Link Express (M) Sdn Bhd
(Mariah Ahmad) [2010] 2 ILR 108

Misconduct - Circulation of e-mails within the office - Claimants circulating to a close loop of friends - Contents of the e-mail - Whether it had contained derogatory language and had been intended to undermine the management of the company - Effect of - Evidence adduced by the company - Whether it had been sufficient to prove the claimants misconduct against the company - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Ruyati Adanan & Anor v. Etika Insurance Bhd
(Mary Shakila Azariah) [2010] 2 ILR 36

Misconduct - Claimant allegedly encouraging colleagues to take medical leave en-masse - Company’s operations affected and financial losses allegedly suffered - Whether the charge had been proven by the company - Effect of - Evidence adduced by the company - Whether it had been premised on mere speculation and suspicion - Whether it had been sufficient to discharge the company’s burden of proof - Effect of - Whether the company’s actions had been inappropriate and inequitable - Whether the company had acted with mala fide intent - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Saravanan Parasuraman v. Nordenia-Thong Fook (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
(Frederick Indran X A Nicholas) [2010] 2 ILR 16

Misconduct - Sexual harassment by claimant on colleague - Whether proven by the company - Position held by claimant - Effect of - Evidence adduced by the company - Whether a prima facie case had been made out against the claimant - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Subramaniam Krishnasamy v. Tesco Stores (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
(Jalaldin Hussain) [2010] 2 ILR 88

Misconduct - Sexual harassment by claimant on colleague - Whether claimant had been in breach of the Code of Conduct - Whether the claimant had been aware of the Code of Conduct - Effect of - Whether the claimant’s breach of the Code of Conduct had been serious enough to warrant his dismissal - Whether the company had been reasonable in their actions against the claimant - Effect of - Whether the company had been justified in dismissing the claimant - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Subramaniam Krishnasamy v. Tesco Stores (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
(Jalaldin Hussain) [2010] 2 ILR 88

Notice of termination - Resignation by the claimant - Claimant subsequently withdrawing resignation letter - Effect of - Whether her withdrawal of resignation had been effective - Whether the claimant’s withdrawal of resignation had been out-of-time - Evidence adduced by the company - Whether it had been sufficient to discharge their burden of proof - Effect of - Company accepting claimant’s resignation - Sequence of events - Which came first - Effect of - Whether the company had effectively dismissed the claimant - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Lee Nyet Choi v. Naza Kia Services Sdn Bhd
(Mary Shakila Azariah) [2010] 2 ILR 187

Performance - Unsatisfactory performance - Claimant given warnings and counselling - Claimant failing to improve - Effect of - Whether the company had been justified in dismissing her from employment - Whether her 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)
Mafiza Mustafa v. Shima Electronic Industri (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
(Mariah Ahmad) [2010] 2 ILR 173

Probationer - Claimant’s probation period being extended due to unsatisfactory performance - Whether proven by the company - Effect of - Whether the claimant’s behaviour had shown a course of negative conduct which had been a sufficient ground for her termination - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Mafiza Mustafa v. Shima Electronic Industri (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
(Mariah Ahmad) [2010] 2 ILR 173

Probationer - Claimant still on probation - Claimant accused of sexually harassing colleague - Whether charges proven by the company - Effect of - Whether the company had managed to prove the misconduct against the claimant - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Subramaniam Krishnasamy v. Tesco Stores (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
(Jalaldin Hussain) [2010] 2 ILR 88

Retrenchment - Claimant retrenched - Claimant not consulted or warned about her impending retrenchment - Effect of - Whether there had been an obligation on the part of the respondent company to warn her about the retrenchment - Code of Conduct for Industrial Harmony - Whether it had been complied with - Provisions of - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) and Code of Conduct for Industrial Harmony 1975 art 20
Malayan Law Journal Sdn Bhd v. Pook Li Ping
(Eddie Yeo Soon Chye) [2010] 2 ILR 140

Retrenchment - Claimant retrenched - Claimant not offered an alternative position within the company - Whether the company had been obligated to make her an alternative offer of employment - Effect of - Whether there had been a dismissal - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Malayan Law Journal Sdn Bhd v. Pook Li Ping
Eddie Yeo Soon Chye [2010] 2 ILR 140

Retrenchment - Claimant retrenched - Effect of - Whether the claimant’s position in the company had been redundant - Evidence adduced by the claimant - Effect of - Whether retrenchment had been done bona fide - Steps taken by the respondent company - Whether the respondent company had exercised their managerial prerogative in good faith - Effect of - Whether the claimant had been aware of the reorganization being undertaken by the company - Effect of - Whether there had been a dismissal - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Malayan Law Journal Sdn Bhd v. Pook Li Ping
(Eddie Yeo Soon Chye) [2010] 2 ILR 140

Witness - Testimony - Two versions of events - Whose version more believable - Evidence adduced - Corroboration - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Subramaniam Krishnasamy v. Tesco Stores (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
(Jalaldin Hussain) [2010] 2 ILR 88

Industrial Court - Award - Award made by way of parties’ consent - Whether rendered them final and conclusive and not open to challenge in any court - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 33B(1)
Dynamic Plantations Bhd v. YB Menteri Sumber Manusia & Anor
(Zaki Tun Azmi CJ, Zulkefli Makinudin FCJ & Mohd Ghazali Yusoff FCJ) [2010] 2 ILR 1

Industrial Court - Reference by Minister - Reference by Minister of dispute over recognition to Industrial Court for adjudication as a trade dispute over parties’ failure to conclude a collective agreement when second respondent neither sought nor obtained recognition from appellant - Whether Minister acted in excess of jurisdiction and/or committed an error of law - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 2, 9, 18, 26, 33B(1)
Dynamic Plantations Bhd v. YB Menteri Sumber Manusia & Anor
(Zaki Tun Azmi CJ, Zulkefli Makinudin FCJ & Mohd Ghazali Yusoff FCJ) [2010] 2 ILR 1

Industrial dispute - Recognition of trade union - Reference by Minister of dispute over recognition to Industrial Court for adjudication as a trade dispute over parties’ failure to conclude a collective agreement when second respondent neither sought nor obtained recognition from appellant - Whether Minister acted in excess of jurisdiction and/or committed an error of law - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 2, 9, 18, 26, 33B(1)
Dynamic Plantations Bhd v. YB Menteri Sumber Manusia & Anor
(Zaki Tun Azmi CJ, Zulkefli Makinudin FCJ & Mohd Ghazali Yusoff FCJ) [2010] 2 ILR 1

Trade dispute - Definition of - Whether complaint by second respondent a trade dispute - Jurisdiction of Minister to refer matter to Industrial Court for resolution - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 2, 18, 26
Dynamic Plantations Bhd v. YB Menteri Sumber Manusia & Anor
(Zaki Tun Azmi CJ, Zulkefli Makinudin FCJ & Mohd Ghazali Yusoff FCJ) [2010] 2 ILR 1

Trade union - Recognition - Policy and purpose of Industrial Relations Act 1967 in respect of statutory procedure of recognition - Recognition cannot be withdrawn once given
Dynamic Plantations Bhd v. YB Menteri Sumber Manusia & Anor
(Zaki Tun Azmi CJ, Zulkefli Makinudin FCJ & Mohd Ghazali Yusoff FCJ) [2010] 2 ILR 1

Trade union - Recognition - Recognition by conduct - Whether appellant by conduct recognised second respondent as a trade union of its employees - Binding collective agreement - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 9
Dynamic Plantations Bhd v. YB Menteri Sumber Manusia & Anor
(Zaki Tun Azmi CJ, Zulkefli Makinudin FCJ & Mohd Ghazali Yusoff FCJ) [2010] 2 ILR 1

Collective Agreement - Claimant originally entitled to a workshop approval allowance - The basis for the allowance - Effect of - Claimant transferred out of the Engineering Division - Workshop Approval Allowance ceasing - Whether the respondent company had been justified in ceasing these allowance payments to the claimant - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether the respondent company had been in breach of the terms and conditions of the collective agreement - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 26(2)
Persatuan Kakitangan Eksekutif Sistem Penerbangan Malaysia v. Sistem Penerbangan Malaysia Berhad
(Franklin Goonting) [2010] 2 ILR 129

Collective Agreement - Ministerial reference limited to the issue of the workshop approval allowance and whether the claimant had been entitled to it after his transfers - Trade union attempting to go beyond the scope of the ministerial reference and argue that the claimant’s many transfers had been mala fide - Whether the Court would be committing a jurisdictional error if it adjudicated on the issue of the claimant’s transfer - Effect of - Functions of the Court - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 26(2)
Persatuan Kakitangan Eksekutif Sistem Penerbangan Malaysia v. Sistem Penerbangan Malaysia Berhad
(Franklin Goonting) [2010] 2 ILR 129

Saksi - COW1 bukan sahaja menjadi saksi syarikat malahan beliau mewakili syarikat dalam kes - Sama ada keadaan itu menimbulkan ketidakadilan atau bercanggah dengan prinsip keadilan asasi - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan atas alasan yang adil dan bersebab - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3), 27(1)(b) & 30(5)
Mohanbabu Ramadoo lwn. C & P Asia Sdn Bhd
(Roslan Mat Nor) [2010] 2 ILR 74

Remedi - Gaji tertunggak - Berapa bulan yang harus diawardkan - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, s. 30(6A)
Mohanbabu Ramadoo lwn. C & P Asia Sdn Bhd
(Roslan Mat Nor) [2010] 2 ILR 74

Ketidakpatuhan terhadap polisi syarikat - Kecurian - Sama ada YM telah mencuri scrap besi daripada 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)
Mohanbabu Ramadoo lwn. C & P Asia Sdn Bhd
(Roslan Mat Nor) [2010] 2 ILR 74

Notis penamatan kerja - YM meletak jawatan - YM mendakwa beliau telah dipaksa meletak jawatan - Keadaan sekeliling yang wujud sebelum dan semasa YM meletak jawatan - Kesannya - Sama ada YM telah dibuang kerja secara konstruktif - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan secara adil dan munasabah - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(3)
Muhammad Wafa Nokman lwn. BMW Asia Technology Centre Sdn Bhd
(Roslan Mat Nor) [2010] 2 ILR 48

Pekerja percubaan - Tempoh percubaan YM dilanjutkan - Sebabnya - Sama ada YM ditegur kerana kekurangannya - Kesannya - Bukti yang dikemukakan oleh responden - Sama ada mencukupi untuk membuktikan perkhidmatan YM yang tidak memuaskan - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM adalah tanpa alasan atau sebab yang adil - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(3)
Jamil Elias lwn. Mutiara Johor Bahru
(Mariah Ahmad) [2010] 2 ILR 155

Pembuangan secara konstruktif - Sama ada YM telah dipaksa meletak jawatan - Bukti yang dikemukakan oleh YM - Kesannya - Sama ada YM berjaya memenuhi beban buktinya - Sama ada YM dibuang kerja secara konstruktif - Kesannya - Sama ada pihak pengurusan syarikat telah menunjukkan hasrat atau niatnya untuk tidak lagi ingin meneruskan kontrak perkhidmatan dengan YM - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan secara adil dan munasabah - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(3)
Muhammad Wafa Nokman lwn. BMW Asia Technology Centre Sdn Bhd
(Roslan Mat Nor) [2010] 2 ILR 48

Pembuangan secara konstruktif - Sama ada YM telah dibuang kerja secara konstruktif - YM hanya mendakwa pembuangan kerja secara konstruktif 1 1/2 bulan selepas kejadian - Kesannya - Sebab untuk kelewatan tersebut - Sama ada boleh diterima oleh mahkamah - Sama ada kelewatan YM tersebut menghalangnya daripada mendakwa pembuangan kerja secara konstruktif - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan secara adil dan munasabah - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(3)
Muhammad Wafa Nokman lwn. BMW Asia Technology Centre Sdn Bhd
(Roslan Mat Nor) [2010] 2 ILR 48

Perkhidmatan yang tidak memuaskan - Sama ada YM ditegur kerana kekurangannya - Sama ada responden telah memberikan amaran bertulis kepada YM - Kesannya - Jawatan yang dipegang oleh YM - Sama ada amaran perlu diberikan kepada YM - Sama ada prestasi YM dinilai mengikut prosedur yang sepatutnya - Kesannya - Sama ada salahlaku YM dibuktikan - Bukti yang dikemukakan oleh responden - Sama ada mencukupi untuk membuktikan perkhidmatan YM yang tidak memuaskan - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM adalah tanpa alasan atau sebab yang adil - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(3)
Jamil Elias lwn. Mutiara Johor Bahru
(Mariah Ahmad) [2010] 2 ILR 155

Salahlaku - YM mengakses fail peribadi rakan sekerjanya - Jawatan yang dipegang oleh YM dalam syarikat - Keistimewaan pengaksesan yang dimiliki oleh YM akibat jawatannya - Sama ada pengaksesan fail ST berkaitan dengan alasan kerja - Kesannya - Syarikat tidak mengalami kerugian kewangan - Maklumat peribadi tersebut juga tidak diketahui oleh pihak ketiga - Kesannya - Sama ada syarikat telah membuktikan salahlaku tersebut - Sama ada salahlaku tersebut mewajibkan YM dibuang kerja - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM terlalu berat - Kesannya - Sama ada tindakan YM telah meruntuhkan asas utama perjanjian perkhidmatan YM dengan syarikat - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan atas alasan yang adil dan munasabah - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(3)
Muhammad Wafa Nokman lwn. BMW Asia Technology Centre Sdn Bhd
(Roslan Mat Nor) [2010] 2 ILR 48

New This Week	1. ILR Articles
	2. ILR Issue 4 of 2010