ILR Bulletin, Issue 2009, Vol 10
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 10 of 2009

AWARDS REPORTED

SUBJECT INDEX

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)
Medas Corporation Bhd v. Noormawati Mohd Nawi
(Amelia Tee Hong Geok Abdullah) [2009] 4 ILR 25

Breach of company rules and policies - Leave - Claimant applying for leave and company rejecting it - Claimant requested to be at work to perform a test on that day - Claimant failing to attend - Claimant applying for emergency leave - Who did he apply to - Whether it had been acceptable - Effect of - Test proceeding in claimant’s absence - Whether claimant’s presence had been required to conduct the test - Whether his absence had caused any detriment - Effect of - Particular test was rescheduled but another test was carried out - Effect of - Whether the company had succeeded in establishing the misconduct against the claimant - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Sathianathan Sambasivam v. Topla Engineering (M) Sdn Bhd
(Choong Siew Khim) [2009] 4 ILR 51

Breach of company rules and policies - Leave - Claimant applying for leave and company rejecting it - Claimant’s salary deducted for that day - Subsequently a DI was held against the claimant and the claimant was found guilty of the misconduct - Whether dismissal had been too harsh a punishment under the circumstances - Effect of - Whether the claimant had been blameworthy in the matter - Amount of compensation that would be deducted for contributory conduct - Effect of - Whether the misconduct had been established by the company - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Sathianathan Sambasivam v. Topla Engineering (M) Sdn Bhd
(Choong Siew Khim) [2009] 4 ILR 51

Breach of company rules and policies - Theft - Claimant admitting to misconduct - Effect of - Claimant pleading mitigation - Claimant showing remorse for his actions - Whether it had been considered by the company - Claimant having an untarnished record with the company for 21 years - Effect of - Conduct of the company - Whether it had been reasonable under the circumstances - Claimant dismissed from company - Whether it had been too harsh under the circumstances - Whether other avenues of punishment had been open to the company - Effect of - Whether dismissal had been without just cause and excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Ramachandiran Kesavan v. Carlsberg Brewery (Malaysia) Berhad
(Gulam Muhiaddeen Abdul Aziz) [2009] 4 ILR 64

Breach of company rules and policies - Theft - Claimant admitting to misconduct - Position held by the claimant in the company - Whether it had been one of trust - Effect of - Whether the maximum penalty of dismissal had been justified - What the company should have done - Circumstances in which the maximum penalty could be imposed - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Ramachandiran Kesavan v. Carlsberg Brewery (Malaysia) Berhad
(Gulam Muhiaddeen Abdul Aziz) [2009] 4 ILR 64

Constructive dismissal - Status - Treatment of the claimant - Audit investigations carried out on the claimant based on allegations of misconduct against her - Seriousness of the misconduct - Claimant’s position in the bank - Claimant holding a managerial position - Effect of - Claimant challenging manner and mode investigations carried out - Conduct of bank - Whether it had constituted a fundamental breach of terms of employment - Whether justified claimant deeming herself constructively dismissed - Claimant not walking out at point of investigation - No reasons adduced as to why she had delayed in walking out of her employment - Whether claimant had condoned the breach - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Southern Bank Berhad v. Ng Keng Lian
(Eddie Yeo Soon Chye) [2009] 4 ILR 153

Constructive dismissal - Transfer - Secondment - Claimant seconded to East Malaysia at short notice - Terms and conditions of claimant’s letter of employment - Whether the company could transfer him - Effect of - Work permit for new job not secured by the company - Whether it had been an anticipatory breach by the company - Effect of - What constituted an anticipatory breach - Whether the company had by its conduct unilaterally varied his contract of employment - Effect of - Whether the company had acted bona fide - 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)
Yap Kain To v. Singer (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
(Fredrick Indran XA Nicholas) [2009] 4 ILR 9

Constructive dismissal - Transfer - Secondment - Claimant walking out on employment - Serving out his notice period - Whether it constituted condonation on his part of the breach by the company - Whether he had protested the company’s breach - 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)
Yap Kain To v. Singer (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
(Fredrick Indran XA Nicholas) [2009] 4 ILR 9

Insubordination - Claimants directed to attend the DI - Claimants refusing - Claimants failing to give reasons for non-attendance - Effect of - Whether the company’s directive to them to attend had been a lawful and reasonable order - Effect of - Result of claimants failure to obey - Whether the company’s actions of proceeding in their absence had been a breach of natural justice - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Asrul Ismail & Ors v. Sinora Sdn Bhd
(P Iruthayaraj D Pappusamy) [2009] 4 ILR 203

Misconduct - Claimants picketing - Claimants having grievances with the company - Whether they had brought those grievances to management’s notice - Whether the management had been aware of the grievances - Effect of - Whether they should have brought it to management’s notice - What should have been done by the claimants before picketing - Effect of the picketing - Whether it had been lawful - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 40
Asrul Ismail & Ors v. Sinora Sdn Bhd
(P Iruthayaraj D Pappusamy) [2009] 4 ILR 203

Misconduct - Claimants picketing - The purpose of the picket - The conduct of the claimants in participating in the picket - Whether they had been unruly - Whether the intention of the picket had been to intimidate the management and non-participating staff of the company - Whether there had been a breach of peace - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3), 40(1)(a) & 40(1)(c)
Asrul Ismail & Ors v. Sinora Sdn Bhd
(P Iruthayaraj D Pappusamy) [2009] 4 ILR 203

Misconduct - Claimant sending off an SMS to her friend commenting on office matters - Effect of the SMS content - Intention of the claimant in sending the SMS - When the SMS had been sent - Whether it had been intended to be used directly against her superior - Effect of - Claimant stating that the SMS had been her point of view - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Esniza Esa v. Naza Kia Sdn Bhd
(Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh) [2009] 4 ILR 166

Misconduct - Claimant sending off an SMS to her friend after working hours - Contents of the SMS - Whether it had constituted a misconduct - No provision for such misconduct in company’s Employee Handbook - 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)
Esniza Esa v. Naza Kia Sdn Bhd
(Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh) [2009] 4 ILR 166

Notice of termination - Forced resignation - Whether claimant voluntarily left or had been forced to resign - Evidence adduced by the company - Claimant’s conduct - Effect of - Claimant only taking action after 10 days - Reasons for the delay - Whether the delay could be held against her - Effect of - Whether claimant had been dismissed without just cause and excuse by the company - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Rema Gopal v. Le Reve (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
(Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh) [2009] 4 ILR 130

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)
Medas Corporation Bhd v. Noormawati Mohd Nawi
(Amelia Tee Hong Geok Abdullah) [2009] 4 ILR 25

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)
Medas Corporation Bhd v. Noormawati Mohd Nawi
(Amelia Tee Hong Geok Abdullah) [2009] 4 ILR 25

Probationer - Claimant put on probation for 3 months - Dismissed after 2 weeks - Effect of - Reasons for dismissal was poor performance - Whether proven by the company - Effect of - Whether the company had taken a reasonable time to evaluate the claimant’s performance - Position held by the claimant in the company - What had been expected of him - Whether he had delivered - Effect of - Conduct of the claimant in the performance of his job - 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)
Khor Say Teong v. Recent Giant Sdn Bhd
(Choong Siew Khim) [2009] 4 ILR 1

Retrenchment - Redundancy - Claimant recruited amidst situation where the respondent was suffering dipping revenues and on-going restructuring - Claimant not warned that he would be stepping into a precarious position - Claimant relocating his family to take up the position - Whether he had a reasonable expectation of being in his position for the duration of his contract or longer - Effect of - Claimant retrenched - Respondent not giving him any reasons for the retrenchment - Whether the respondent’s actions were bona fide - Whether a redundancy situation had existed - Whether proven by the respondent - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Dr William Michael Newberry v. Silicon Graphics Sdn Bhd
(Franklin Goonting) [2009] 4 ILR 178

Retrenchment - Redundancy - Claimant retrenched - Claimant’s job functions continuing to exist after he was retrenched - Redistribution of his job functions amongst other employees of the respondent - Claimant providing ad hoc consultancy services to the respondent - Effect of - Whether a redundancy situation had existed - Whether proven by the respondent - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3) & 30(5)
Dr William Michael Newberry v. Silicon Graphics Sdn Bhd
(Franklin Goonting) [2009] 4 ILR 178

Retrenchment - Redundancy - Claimant retrenched - Claimant not warned or consulted prior to being retrenched - Whether he should have been consulted - Effect of - Claimant aware of respondent’s position - Whether that had been sufficient to constitute warning of the retrenchment to him - Effect of - Code of Conduct for Industrial Harmony - Whether it had been complied with - Circumstances under which the claimant had taken the job - Effect of - Claimant not given any notice about his retrenchment - Position held by the claimant in the respondent company - Whether the claimant’s dismissal had been mala fide - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5A)
Dr William Michael Newberry v. Silicon Graphics Sdn Bhd
(Franklin Goonting) [2009] 4 ILR 178

Retrenchment - Redundancy - Claimant retrenched - Factors taken into consideration for retrenching the claimant - Whether adduced by the respondent - Whether COW1’s evidence had been hearsay - Whether there had been a lacuna in the respondent’s case - Effect of - Whether a redundancy situation had existed - Whether proven by the respondent - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Dr William Michael Newberry v. Silicon Graphics Sdn Bhd
(Franklin Goonting) [2009] 4 ILR 178

Retrenchment - Redundancy - Claimant retrenched - Whether the LIFO principles had been adhered to - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Dr William Michael Newberry v. Silicon Graphics Sdn Bhd
(Franklin Goonting) [2009] 4 ILR 178

Retrenchment - Redundancy - Claimant retrenched without notice - Whether the respondent had taken any steps to redeploy, transfer or redesignate the claimant - Code of Conduct for Industrial Harmony - Whether it had been complied with by the respondent - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Dr William Michael Newberry v. Silicon Graphics Sdn Bhd
(Franklin Goonting) [2009] 4 ILR 178

DOMESTIC INQUIRY

Charge brought against the claimants - Claimants imposed salary increment stoppage for 2 years - Whether it had been too harsh under the circumstances - Mitigating factors that had been considered - Effect of - Who would be in the best position to determine punishment - Whether Court would interfere with bank’s decision - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Association Of Maybank Class One Officers v. Maybank Bhd
(Franklin Goonting) [2009] 4 ILR 116

Charge brought against the claimants - Claimants pleading not guilty - Claimants admitting to failure to countercheck transaction with counterparties - Whether that had amounted to an admission - Effect of - Whether loss had been part of the charge - Whether the fact that the bank had not suffered detriment or financial loss had been relevant - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Association Of Maybank Class One Officers v. Maybank Bhd
(Franklin Goonting) [2009] 4 ILR 116

Charge brought against the claimants - Whether the claimants had managed to rebut the charges - Evidence adduced by them - Effect of - Whether their rebuttals had been afterthoughts - Attitude of the claimants - Effect of - Submission that claimants could not have carried out the bank’s directive - Union not raising an issue to the directive when it came out - What should have been done by the union - Effect of - Mitigating factor considered by the DI panel - Claimants not dismissed but imposed salary increment stoppage for 2 years - Conduct of the bank overall - Whether it had been fair - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Association Of Maybank Class One Officers v. Maybank Bhd
(Franklin Goonting) [2009] 4 ILR 116

Procedural impropriety - Claimants failing to attend despite being given notice to attend - 2 opportunities given to the claimants - Effect of - Whether claimants had asked the union to represent them - Evidence adduced by the claimants - Effect of - Whether the conducting of the DI in the claimants absence had been a breach of natural justice - Conduct of the company - Effect of - Whether the company’s actions had been reasonable under the circumstances - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Asrul Ismail & Ors v. Sinora Sdn Bhd
(P Iruthayaraj D Pappusamy) [2009] 4 ILR 203

EVIDENCE

Documentary evidence - Findings of the Domestic Inquiry - Domestic Inquiry notes not tendered - Importance of Domestic Inquiry notes - Effect of - Whether there had been a breach of natural justice - Whether the Domestic Inquiry had been valid - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Esniza Esa v. Naza Kia Sdn Bhd
(Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh) [2009] 4 ILR 166

Documentary evidence - Notes of the DI - Whether the rules of natural justice had been complied with - Effect of - No objection taken to them - Effect of - Whether the bank had established a prima facie case against the claimants - Onus shifting to claimants to rebut - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Association Of Maybank Class One Officers v. Maybank Bhd
(Franklin Goonting) [2009] 4 ILR 116

Witness - Whether the respondent had brought in the relevant witnesses to prove its case - Effect of - Respondent witness not having personal knowledge of facts - What the respondent should have done - Effect of - Whether a redundancy situation had existed - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Dr William Michael Newberry v. Silicon Graphics Sdn Bhd
(Franklin Goonting) [2009] 4 ILR 178

INDUSTRIAL COURT

Remedies - Backwages - Whether any deductions should be made - Factors to consider - What a reasonable percentage of deduction would be - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Dr William Michael Newberry v. Silicon Graphics Sdn Bhd
(Franklin Goonting) [2009] 4 ILR 178

Remedies - Punishment - Mitigating factors - Whether had been taken into account by the company - Effect of - Whether it should have been taken into account - Factors to consider - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Ramachandiran Kesavan v. Carlsberg Brewery (Malaysia) Berhad
(Gulam Muhiaddeen Abdul Aziz) [2009] 4 ILR 64

Remedies - Reinstatement - Claimant seeking reinstatement - Whether it would be an appropriate remedy - Factors to consider - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Dr William Michael Newberry v. Silicon Graphics Sdn Bhd
(Franklin Goonting) [2009] 4 ILR 178

INDEKS PERKARA

MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN

Bidangkuasa - Yang menuntut menandatangani Agent’s Agreement dan Agency Agreement dengan syarikat - Sama ada terdapat hubungan pekerja majikan antara yang menuntut dan syarikat - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya - Sama ada mahkamah mempunyai bidangkuasa untuk mendengar perkara ini - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967
John Hancock Life Insurance (Malaysia) Berhad lwn. Chua Soon Heng
(Roslan Mat Noor) [2009] 4 ILR 78

Remedi - Gaji kebelakangan - Gaji yang menuntut berdasarkan komisyen - Purata gaji bulanan yang menuntut tidak dipertikaikan oleh syarikat - Bagaimana asas gaji kebelakangan yang menuntut dikira - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967
John Hancock Life Insurance (Malaysia) Berhad lwn. Chua Soon Heng
(Roslan Mat Noor) [2009] 4 ILR 78

Remedi - Gantirugi perlantikan semula - Bagaimana dikira - Faktor yang harus diambil kira - Sama ada yang menuntut dapat mencari kerja selepas dibuang kerja - Kesannya - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, ss. 30(4) & 30(5)
John Hancock Life Insurance (Malaysia) Berhad lwn. Chua Soon Heng
(Roslan Mat Noor) [2009] 4 ILR 78

PEMBUANGAN KERJA

Ketidakhadiran - Yang menuntut tidak hadir bekerja - Syarikat mengeluarkan surat tunjuk sebab terhadap yang menuntut - Sebab ketidakhadiran yang menuntut berada di dalam makluman syarikat - Kesannya - Sama ada surat tunjuk sebab itu bertujuan untuk memalukan yang menuntut - Tingkah laku syarikat - Sama ada terdapat penganiayaan yang dilakukan oleh syarikat ke atas YM - Kesannya - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967
John Hancock Life Insurance (Malaysia) Berhad lwn. Chua Soon Heng
(Roslan Mat Noor) [2009] 4 ILR 78

Pekerja percubaan - Sama ada YM disahkan di dalam jawatannya - YM sendiri mengakui tidak disahkan dalam jawatannya - Sama ada YM merupakan pekerja percubaan apabila beliau dipecat - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja adalah tanpa alasan atau sebab yang adil - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(3)
Borhanuddin Hussien lwn. Bumihiway (M) Sdn Bhd
(Ahmad Rosli Mohd Sham) [2009] 4 ILR 143

Pemecatan - Perlantikan dan pemecatan YM - Dilakukan oleh syarikat mana - Kedua-dua syarikat merupakan entiti berlainan - Siapa yang merupakan majikan YM - Faktor-faktor yang harus diambil kira - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja adalah tanpa alasan atau sebab yang adil - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(3)
Borhanuddin Hussien lwn. Bumihiway (M) Sdn Bhd
(Ahmad Rosli Mohd Sham) [2009] 4 ILR 143

Pemecatan secara konstruktif - Penurunan pangkat yang menuntut - Sama ada dilakukan secara bona fide - Kesannya - Alasan yang digunakan oleh syarikat untuk menurunkan pangkat yang menuntut - Sama ada pencapaian buruk yang menuntut dibuktikan oleh syarikat - Kesannya - Penjelasan yang menuntut kepada surat penurunan pangkat tersebut - Reaksi syarikat kepadanya - Yang menuntut gagal untuk membuat rayuan terhadap keputusan syarikat - Kesannya - Sama ada tindakan syarikat merupakan perlanggaran yang melibatkan asas kontrak antara mereka - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja adalah tanpa alasan atau sebab yang adil - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(3)
John Hancock Life Insurance (Malaysia) Berhad lwn. Chua Soon Heng
(Roslan Mat Noor) [2009] 4 ILR 78

Pemecatan secara konstruktif - Penurunan pangkat yang menuntut berdasarkan pencapaian buruknya - Yang menuntut melebihi prestasi COW1 - Tidak dinafikan oleh syarikat - Layanan berbeza yang diberikan oleh syarikat kepada yang menuntut dan COW1 kepada surat penjelasan masing-masing - Sama ada tindakan syarikat tersebut menunjukkan niatnya untuk tidak lagi meneruskan dengan kontrak perkhidmatan YM - Sama ada dibuktikan oleh YM - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja adalah tanpa alasan atau sebab yang adil - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(3)
John Hancock Life Insurance (Malaysia) Berhad lwn. Chua Soon Heng
(Roslan Mat Noor) [2009] 4 ILR 78

Pemecatan secara konstruktif - Penurunan pangkat yang menuntut - Yang menuntut hanya mendakwa pemecatan secara konstruktif 2 bulan selepas menerima surat syarikat - Sama ada 2 bulan merupakan masa yang munasabah untuk yang menuntut mendakwa pemecatan secara konstruktif - Tindakan yang diambil oleh yang menuntut sebelum mendakwa pemecatan secara konstruktif - Kesannya - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967
John Hancock Life Insurance (Malaysia) Berhad lwn. Chua Soon Heng
(Roslan Mat Noor) [2009] 4 ILR 78

"Redundancy" - Sama ada berjaya dibuktikan oleh syarikat - Keterangan yang dikemukakan - Sama ada memadai - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja adalah tanpa alasan atau sebab yang adil - Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(3)
Borhanuddin Hussien lwn. Bumihiway (M) Sdn Bhd
(Ahmad Rosli Mohd Sham) [2009] 4 ILR 143

CASE OF THE WEEK

ENG LUAN CHIN v. EDARAN OTOMOBIL NASIONAL BHD

CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT: Terms and conditions - Term in collective agreement in conflict with term in letter of appointment in relation to the retirement age of the claimant - Which one takes precedent - Effect of - Claimant not a member of the union - Whether the claimant had been covered by the collective agreement - Effect of - Implications of s. 17 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Whether mandatory - Whether the claimant had been resigned lawfully - Effect of - Whether there had been a dismissal - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 17 & 20(3)

CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT: Terms and conditions - Term in collective agreement in conflict with term in letter of appointment in relation to the retirement age of the claimant - Claimant not a member of the union - Whether the claimant had come within the scope of the collective agreement - Effect of - Whether s. 14(3) of the Industrial Relations Act had been contravened - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether there had been a dismissal - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 14(3), 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