CLJ Law MALAYSIA
http://www.cljlaw.com
ILR Bulletin, Issue 2010, Vol 05
July 2010
|
Print this page |
CLJ Law MALAYSIA |
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
| New This Week | 1. ILR Articles |
| 2. ILR Issue 5 of 2010 |
The Frontiers Of Labour Law Today (What's New In Labour Law)* [2010] 2 ILR xxi [Read excerpt]
By B Lobo**
AWARDS REPORTED
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SUBJECT INDEX
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Public servants - Dismissal of police officer - Whether letter to show cause must specifically mention possible penalty of dismissal or reduction in rank - Whether officer given reasonable opportunity of being heard and to state his case - Whether officer denied of his constitutional rights - Articles 5(1), 8(1) & 135(2) Federal Constitution - Regulation 28(1) Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993
Abdul Aziz Mohd Alias v. Timbalan Ketua Polis Negara, Malaysia & Anor
(Arifin Zakaria CJ (Malaya), Zulkefli Makinudin FCJ & Mohd Ghazali Yusoff FCJ) [2010] 2 ILR 217
CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT
Terms and conditions - Claimant signing a contract with the company for a period of a year - Claimant seconded to SME - Secondment subject to agreement executed between the company and SME - Whether the claimant had been privy to it - Effect of - Six months into secondment, claimant's services terminated - Sole reliance on termination clause in the contract - Effect of - Whether the claimant had been an employee of the company - Factors to consider - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Ong Yin Quan v. AQM Marketing Sdn Bhd
(Gulam Muhiaddeen Abdul Aziz) [2010] 2 ILR 391
DISMISSAL
Breach of company rules and policies - Claimant fighting with a foreigner subordinate - Position of the claimant as a supervisor - Whether the claimant had owed a duty of care to exercise more control and restraint in treating such a subordinate - Whether the claimant's subordinate had been in a vulnerable position - Effect of - Claimant dismissed from the company - Whether the punishment of dismissal had been too harsh considering the circumstances - Factors to consider - Effect of - Appeal letter sent by claimant's union representative - Whether the company had given due consideration to the contents of the appeal letter - Effect of - Whether the company had been too harsh in dismissing the claimant - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Kian Joo Can Factory Berhad v. Ng Kok Hooi
(Ong Geok Lan) [2010] 2 ILR 258
Breach of company rules and policies - Conflict of interest with company's business - Claimant's husband an employee in a competitor company - Effect of - Claimant's position in the company - Whether her position had breached or violated both the implied and express terms of the respondent company's policies governing conflict of interest - Terms and conditions of the claimant's letter of appointment - Whether the company had informed the claimant about the alleged conflict of interest - Evidence adduced by the claimant - Effect of - Whether the company had proven the misconduct against the claimant - Effect of - Whether the company had been right in dismissing the claimant - Effect of -Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Chuah Gee See v. Fuji Xerox Asia Pacific Pte Ltd
(Eddie Yeo Soon Chye) [2010] 2 ILR 288
Breach of company rules and policies - Fighting on company premises - Foreigner employee involved - Injuries sustained - Weapon used - Whether proven - Effect of - Position of the claimant in the company - Claimant's years of service in the company - Whether the claimant should have taken matters into his own hands - Effect of - Evidence adduced by the company - Whether the company had proven the misconduct against the claimant - Effect of - Whether the company had been right in dismissing the claimant - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Kian Joo Can Factory Berhad v. Ng Kok Hooi
(Ong Geok Lan) [2010] 2 ILR 258
Constructive dismissal - Demotion - Claimant charged with misconduct for actions done by his agent - Whether the claimant had followed guidelines - Whether anyone had been misled by the claimant's actions - Effect of - Whether the claimant had been covering up his agents actions - Whether proven by the company - Evidence adduced by the company - Defence put forward by the claimant - Whether the company had given it due consideration - Whether the claimant had gained financially from the misconduct - Whether the company should have taken that into consideration in its deliberations - Effect of - Company's actions - Whether there had been a 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)
Seah Ann Yee v. John Hancock Life Insurance (Malaysia) Berhad
(Samsudin Hassan) [2010] 2 ILR 302
Constructive dismissal - Demotion - Claimant demoted and paid a reduced salary - Reasons adduced by the company - Whether the company had proven the misconduct against the claimant - Whether the company's case had been based on speculation and suspicion - Effect of - Evidence adduced by the company - Evidence adduced by the claimant - Whether the company had successfully rebutted the claimant's evidence - Effect of - Whether the claimant had delayed in walking out of his employment - Whether constructive dismissal had successfully been proven by the claimant - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Seah Ann Yee v. John Hancock Life Insurance (Malaysia) Berhad
(Samsudin Hassan) [2010] 2 ILR 302
Constructive dismissal - Salary - Claimant paid his salary over a month late -Whether the parties had agreed for his salary to be paid late - Effect of - Whether it had constituted a breach of a fundamental term which had gone to the root of the contract of employment - Whether it would have justified the claimant walking out of his employment - Effect of - Conduct of the company - Claimant issued a show cause letter and replying to it - Whether the company had paid heed to his explanations contained therein - Effect of - Whether the company had breached its implied duty to conduct itself so that the relationship of trust and confidence between it and the claimant would not be destroyed or damaged - Whether the claimant had successfully proven constructive dismissal - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Seah Ann Yee v. John Hancock Life Insurance (Malaysia) Berhad
(Samsudin Hassan) [2010] 2 ILR 302
Insubordination - Claimant transferred to another outlet - Change in his working hours - Effect of - Whether his working hours had been stipulated in his letter of appointment - Terms and conditions in his letter of appointment - Effect of - Whether the company had been in breach of the terms and conditions in his letter of appointment by changing his working hours - Whether the company's actions had been reasonable - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Mohd Sufian Abdul Rahaman v. Kazema Catering & Services Sdn Bhd
(Khadijah Mahmud) [2010] 2 ILR 273
Insubordination - Claimant transferred to another outlet - Whether his transfer had been done in good faith - Effect of - Transfer clause in the claimant's contract of employment - Interpretation of it - Whether it had entitled the company to transfer him to another outlet - Effect of - Nature of the company's business - Position held by the claimant in the company - Claimant was the only driver - Whether the company's actions in transferring him had been reasonable - Effect of - Whether there had been any mala fide intent on the part of the company in transferring the claimant - Evidence adduced by the company - Whether it had discharged its burden of proving just dismissal - Effect of - Whether it had managed to prove the charge against the claimant - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Mohd Sufian Abdul Rahaman v. Kazema Catering & Services Sdn Bhd
(Khadijah Mahmud) [2010] 2 ILR 273
Misconduct - Circulation of e-mail to all company staff - 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 claimant's misconduct against the company - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Norlaila Mohd Nor v. Unicity Marketing Sdn Bhd
(Mariah Ahmad) [2010] 2 ILR 367
Misconduct - Circulation of e-mail to all company staff - Whether it had been a misconduct on the part of the claimant - Effect of - Subsequent actions of the company - Whether it had constituted condonation - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Norlaila Mohd Nor v. Unicity Marketing Sdn Bhd
(Mariah Ahmad) [2010] 2 ILR 367
Notice of termination - Termination simpliciter - Claimant terminated based solely on termination clause in the contract - Whether valid - Effect of - Legitimate expectations of the claimant - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20
Ong Yin Quan v. AQM Marketing Sdn Bhd
(Gulam Muhiaddeen Abdul Aziz) [2010] 2 ILR 391
Performance - Unsatisfactory performance - Claimant charged with failing in his duties as the Security Department Controller - Whether proven by the company - Company failing to adduce physical evidence - Company's reasons for the same - Whether it had been acceptable - Whether the company had discharged its burden of proof - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Subramanee Veeran v. Ngan Yin Groundnut Factory Sdn Bhd
(Fredrick Indran X A Nicholas) [2010] 2 ILR 435
Retrenchment - Redundancy - Claimant's position in the company - Company re-organizing its business - Claimant's position abolished - Whether his functions, duties and responsibilities had ceased or diminished - Effect of - Whether the company had succeeded in proving that a redundancy situation had existed - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5), Employment Act 1955, ss. 12(3)(a), 12(3)(b) & 12(3)(c) & Fair Work Act 2009 (Australia) s. 389
Looi Ah Heng v. Malayan Law Journal Sdn Bhd
(Susila Sithamparam) [2010] 2 ILR 422
Retrenchment - Redundancy - Claimant retrenched - Company failing to adduce evidence to show how much it had saved by the claimant's retrenchment - Company only adducing verbal evidence - Whether that had been sufficient - 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)
Chuah Lee Heng v. Hong Leong Property Management Co Sdn Bhd & Ors
(Mariah Ahmad) [2010] 2 ILR 340
Retrenchment - Redundancy - Claimant retrenched - Claimant's job functions continuing to be performed by other employees of the company - Effect of - Whether the company had discharged its burden of proving a redundancy situation had existed - Evidence adduced by the company - Effect of - Whether the company's actions of terminating the claimant's services had been arbitrary - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Chuah Lee Heng v. Hong Leong Property Management Co Sdn Bhd & Ors
(Mariah Ahmad) [2010] 2 ILR 340
Retrenchment - Redundancy - Claimant terminated as services no longer required by SME - Company failing to adduce evidence to show that SME had not needed the claimant's services any longer - Effect of - Whether a redundancy situation had been proven to exist in SME - Whether proven by the company - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Ong Yin Quan v. AQM Marketing Sdn Bhd
(Gulam Muhiaddeen Abdul Aziz) [2010] 2 ILR 391
Retrenchment - Redundancy - Company reorganizing and restructuring its business - Claimant retrenched due to such reorganization - Company's annual report showing a pre-tax profit, company awarding dividends to shareholders and recommending a payment of dividends on shares - Effect of - Whether the company had exhausted all other avenues for cutting costs - Whether the company had been so economically affected that it had not had a choice but to retrench the claimant - Factors to consider - Whether proven by the company - Whether the company's actions were bona fide - 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)
Chuah Lee Heng v. Hong Leong Property Management Co Sdn Bhd & Ors
(Mariah Ahmad) [2010] 2 ILR 340
DOMESTIC INQUIRY
Procedural impropriety - Whether the company had flouted the procedures on the show cause letter and the DI so much that it had been prejudicial against the claimant - Whether the claimant had been given a fair and equitable right of being heard - Effect of - Whether the rules of natural justice had been complied with - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Seah Ann Yee v. John Hancock Life Insurance (Malaysia) Berhad
(Samsudin Hassan) [2010] 2 ILR 302
EVIDENCE
Adverse inference - Inference - Company's version and claimant's version of what had transpired at the meeting in direct contradiction - Evidence adduced by the company - Company failing to produce personal notes of its officer - Effect of - Whether an inference could be drawn against the company - Whose version more probable - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Norlaila Mohd Nor v. Unicity Marketing Sdn Bhd
(Mariah Ahmad) [2010] 2 ILR 367
Witness - Material contradictions and inconsistencies - Foreigner employee giving inconsistent testimony - Whether Court should take cognizance of the fact that he was a foreigner employee - The time lapse before the incident and the matter coming to Court - Whether should be taken into consideration - Effect of - Whether his testimony could be accepted - Way in which his testimony had been given and the language in which it had been given - Effect of - Other evidence adduced by the company - Whether the company had succeeded in proving the misconduct against the claimant - Whether the claimant's dismissal had been justified considering the circumstances - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Kian Joo Can Factory Berhad v. Ng Kok Hooi
(Ong Geok Lan) [2010] 2 ILR 258
INDUSTRIAL COURT
Procedure - Reference to High Court - 6 questions sought to be referred - Whether the questions sought to be referred had been raised in the course of proceedings - Whether the questions of law sought to be referred should have been raised in the course of proceedings - Effect of - Whether the applicant's had essentially been appealing against the Award vide s. 33A of the Act - Effect of - Purpose of s. 33A of the Act - Whether requirements of s. 33A of the IRA had been satisfied - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 33A
Maybank v. Cheo Ai Mee
(Mary Shakila Azariah) [2010] 2 ILR 385
Remedies - Backwages - Claim for average commissions to be included in computation - Whether should be allowed - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Chuah Gee See v. Fuji Xerox Asia Pacific Pte Ltd
(Eddie Yeo Soon Chye) [2010] 2 ILR 288
Remedies - Compensation - Claimant on a fixed term contract - Whether he was entitled to compensation in lieu of reinstatement - Effect of - How compensation should be calculated in such circumstances - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Subramanee Veeran v. Ngan Yin Groundnut Factory Sdn Bhd
(Fredrick Indran X A Nicholas) [2010] 2 ILR 435
Remedies - Compensation in lieu of reinstatement - Claim for outstanding commissions, incentive trips and contractual bonuses - Whether should be allowed - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Chuah Gee See v. Fuji Xerox Asia Pacific Pte Ltd
(Eddie Yeo Soon Chye) [2010] 2 ILR 288
Remedies - Compensation - Factors to consider - Effect of - Calculation of compensation - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Looi Ah Heng v. Malayan Law Journal Sdn Bhd
(Susila Sithamparam) [2010] 2 ILR 422
Remedies - Compensation - Whether appropriate - Whether the claimant had entered into a fixed term contract - Whether it had been a genuine fixed term contract - Factors to consider - Effect of - Calculation of compensation - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Ong Yin Quan v. AQM Marketing Sdn Bhd
(Gulam Muhiaddeen Abdul Aziz) [2010] 2 ILR 391
Remedies - Punishment - Mitigating factors - After the claimant had been informed of his demotion whether he had been given an opportunity to mitigate his punishment - Whether the denial of the right to make a mitigation plea had been a breach of natural justice - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Seah Ann Yee v. John Hancock Life Insurance (Malaysia) Berhad
(Samsudin Hassan) [2010] 2 ILR 302
Remedies - Reinstatement - Claimant seeking reinstatement - Claimant over the age of 50 and had left the company over a decade ago - Whether it would be an appropriate remedy - Factors to consider - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Chuah Lee Heng v. Hong Leong Property Management Co Sdn Bhd & Ors
(Mariah Ahmad) [2010] 2 ILR 340
Remedies - Reinstatement - Claimant seeking reinstatement - Whether it had been appropriate under the circumstances - Factors to consider - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Norlaila Mohd Nor v. Unicity Marketing Sdn Bhd
(Mariah Ahmad) [2010] 2 ILR 367
Remedies - Reinstatement - Whether appropriate - Claimant currently in a job with a higher salary - Factors to consider - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Looi Ah Heng v. Malayan Law Journal Sdn Bhd
(Susila Sithamparam) [2010] 2 ILR 422
Remedies - Reinstatement - Whether appropriate - Whether the claimant had entered into a fixed term contract - Factors to consider - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Ong Yin Quan v. AQM Marketing Sdn Bhd
(Gulam Muhiaddeen Abdul Aziz) [2010] 2 ILR 391
PUBLIC SERVANTS
Dismissal - Dismissal of police officer - Dismissal of Chief Inspector on charges under Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993 - Whether letter to show cause must specifically mention possible penalty of dismissal or reduction in rank - Whether officer given reasonable opportunity of being heard and to state his case - Whether officer denied of his constitutional rights - Articles 5(1), 8(1) & 135(2) Federal Constitution - Regulation 28(1) Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993
Abdul Aziz Mohd Alias v. Timbalan Ketua Polis Negara, Malaysia & Anor
(Arifin Zakaria CJ (Malaya), Zulkefli Makinudin FCJ & Mohd Ghazali Yusoff FCJ) [2010] 2 ILR 217
POLICE
Disciplinary proceedings - Dismissal - Dismissal of Chief Inspector on charges under Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993 - Whether officer may be presumed to know of his rights - Whether letter to show cause must specifically mention possible penalty of dismissal or reduction in rank - Whether officer given reasonable opportunity of being heard and to state his case - Whether officer denied of his constitutional rights - Articles 5(1), 8(1) & 135(2) Federal Constitution - Regulation 28(1) Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993
Abdul Aziz Mohd Alias v. Timbalan Ketua Polis Negara, Malaysia & Anor
(Arifin Zakaria CJ (Malaya), Zulkefli Makinudin FCJ & Mohd Ghazali Yusoff FCJ) [2010] 2 ILR 217
INDEKS PERKARA
KONTRAK PERKHIDMATAN
Jenis - Sama ada untuk tempoh tetap - Keterangan yang dikemukakan oleh syarikat - Kesannya - Sama ada YM merupakan pekerja yang dilantik untuk suatu tempoh tetap sahaja - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan atas alasan yang adil dan bersebab - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Shaiful Annuar Othman lwn. Etumax Corporation Sdn Bhd
(Hamdan Indah) [2010] 2 ILR 411
PEMBUANGAN KERJA
Ketidakhadiran - Sama ada peruntukan di bawah s. 60F(2)(b) Akta Kerja 1955 terpakai secara otomatik - Tujuan Akta Kerja 1955 digubal - Sebuah Akta social - Bagaimana peruntukannya harus ditafsirkan - YM gagal hadir bekerja - Langkah-langkah yang diambil oleh YM untuk memberitahu majikannya tentang sebab ketidakhadirannya - Sama ada memadai supaya peruntukan s. 60F(2)(b) tersebut tidak terpakai - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan tanpa sebab yang adil dan munasabah - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) dan 30(5) dan Akta Kerja 1955, s. 60F(2)(b)
Siti Norazyah Romli lwn. Malaysian Airlines System Berhad
(Roslan Mat Nor) [2010] 2 ILR 233
Ketidakhadiran - Sama ada peruntukan di bawah s. 15(2) Akta Kerja 1955 terpakai secara otomatik - Elemen-elemen yang harus ditunjukkan - Sama ada elemen-elemen tersebut wujud di dalam kes ini - Kesannya - Sama ada provision mengenai penjelasan terpakai di dalam kes ini - Sama ada YM telah berjaya membuktikan bahawa beliau telah memberitahu majikannya tentang sebab ketidakhadirannya hadir bekerja - Kesannya - Anggapan di bawah s. 60F(2)(b) dan 15(2) digunakan sebagai asas untuk membuang kerja YM - Sama ada anggapan berganda boleh digunapakai - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan tanpa sebab yang adil dan munasabah - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) dan Akta Kerja 1955, ss. 13(2), 15(2) & 60F(2)(b)
Siti Norazyah Romli lwn. Malaysian Airlines System Berhad
(Roslan Mat Nor) [2010] 2 ILR 233
Ketidakhadiran - YM didakwa tidak hadir ke kerja dan gagal memaklumkan syarikat - YM mendakwa telah memberitahu syarikat melalui rakan kerjanya - Surat tunjuk sebab dikeluarkan oleh syarikat - YM mendakwa tidak menerima surat tunjuk sebab tersebut - Sama ada berjaya dibuktikan oleh YM - Bukti yang dikemukakan oleh YM - Kesannya - Sama ada YM berjaya membuktikan bahawa beliau telah memaklumkan syarikat mengenai sebab ketidakhadirannya - Dapatan mahkamah mengikut kebarangkalian yang lebih munasabah - Kesannya - Sama ada syarikat berjaya membuktikan ketidakhadiran YM tanpa penjelasan - Sama ada ketidakhadiran YM tanpa penjelasan telah menyebabkan syarikat menganggap bahawa beliau tidak hadir - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dibuat tanpa sebab yang adil dan munasabah - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(3) & Akta Kerja 1955, s. 60F(2)(b)
Siti Norazyah Romli lwn. Malaysian Airlines System Berhad
(Roslan Mat Nor) [2010] 2 ILR 233
Ketidakhadiran - YM gagal hadir bekerja - Sama ada ianya merupakan kali pertama YM gagal hadir bekerja tanpa penjelasan - YM mengambil cuti sakit tanpa mengikut peraturan syarikat - Syarikat telah memberi sesi kaunseling kepada YM - Sama ada sesi kaunseling tersebut mendatangkan hasil - Kesannya - Sama ada tindakan syarikat membuang kerja YM berpatutan memandangkan keadaan sekeliling - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan tanpa sebab yang adil dan munasabah - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) dan 30(5) dan Akta Kerja 1955, s. 60F(2)(b)
Siti Norazyah Romli lwn. Malaysian Airlines System Berhad
(Roslan Mat Nor) [2010] 2 ILR 233
Ketidakpatuhan terhadap polisi syarikat - Pengingkaran kewajipan fidusiari - Sama ada YM telah bertindak bertentangan dengan kepentingan syarikat semasa menjalankan tugasnya - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Sama ada mencukupi untuk membuktikan salah laku YM - Kesannya - Sama ada perhubungan antara majikan dan pekerja telah terjejas - Kesannya - Sama ada tindakan syarikat membuang kerja YM adalah munasabah - Sama ada pembuangan kerja YM telah dilakukan atas alasan yang adil dan bersebab - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Shaiful Annuar Othman lwn. Etumax Corporation Sdn Bhd
(Hamdan Indah) [2010] 2 ILR 411
CASE OF THE WEEK
MOHD KHIDZIN SALLEHUDIN v. RAMATEX TEXTILES INDUSTRIAL SDN BHD
DISMISSAL: Insubordination - Claimant "offered" a temporary transfer to Namibia - Claimant declining and giving his reasons for the same - Company not accepting his explanations and insisting he go on transfer - Whether the claimant's transfer had been necessary for the exigencies of his employer and its business - Effect of - Whether the "offer" to be transferred had been a superior order - Whether the claimant's refusal to abide by the same had amounted to wilful disobedience and insubordination - Effect of - Whether there had been any mala fide intent on the part of the company in transferring the claimant - Evidence adduced by the company - Whether it had discharged its burden of proving just dismissal - Effect of - Whether it had managed to prove the charge against the claimant - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
DISMISSAL: Insubordination - Claimant "offered" a temporary transfer to Namibia - Whether it had been detrimental to him - Evidence adduced by the claimant - Whether sufficient to prove detriment to him - Effect of - Whether the transfer had been on short notice - Evidence adduced by the claimant - Effect of - Whether the company's actions had been reasonable - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
ILR Bulletin
To Subscribe/Unsubscribe go to http://www.cljlaw.com/ilrsubscribefrm.asp
Copyright ©1997 - 2010 CLJ Legal Network Sdn
Bhd (192353 V)
Email: enquiries@cljlaw.com
Phone: 603-42705421(DL) 603-42705400(GL) Fax No : 603-42705402