ILR Bulletin,  Issue 3 2008
April 2008

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 3 of 2008

Absenteeism - Claimant failing to turn up for work without excuse - Whether proven by the company - Effect of - Company claiming claimant had voluntarily resigned - No reasons adduced for claimant walking out - Whether claimant had been on leave - Whether company’s procedure for leave application had been followed by the claimant - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Low Seng Suan v. New Subang Transport Sdn Bhd
(Chew Soo Ho) [2008] 1 ILR 520

Breach of company rules and policies - Dishonesty - Uniform ordering policy - Whether claimant had breached the policy - Who had been entitled to uniforms - Claimant had been issued a uniform when he had taken over a job temporarily - Claimant unsure whether entitled - Whether proven by the company - Scope of claimant’s duties - Whether discharged - Effect of - Whether the company had managed to establish the misconduct against the claimant - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Shia Seng Yuan v. Tractors Malaysia (1982) Sdn Bhd
(P Iruthayaraj D Pappusamy) [2008] 1 ILR 603

Breach of company rules and policies - Dishonesty - Uniform ordering policy - No clear written procedure on the same - Whether company should have been held responsible on account of the same - Claimant failing to follow previous procedure of the company - Effect of - Company checking the forms before it went out - Company failing to inform claimant either orally or in writing of his disentitlement to the uniforms - Effect of - Whether the company had managed to establish the misconduct against the claimant - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Shia Seng Yuan v. Tractors Malaysia (1982) Sdn Bhd
(P Iruthayaraj D Pappusamy) [2008] 1 ILR 603

Breach of company rules and policy - Negligence - Documentary evidence of respondent - Whether sufficient to prove negligence - Effect of - Time frame - Whether grounds relied on by respondent to show negligence had transpired before claimant’s termination - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967 s. 20(3) & Evidence Act 1950 s. 114(g)
Ghani & Co v. Lisa Koh Hui Meng
(Chew Soo Ho) [2008] 1 ILR 669

Breach of company rules and policies - Retirement age - Not stipulated in employment contract - Whether one party could unilaterally alter the terms in the contract of service - Effect of - Claimants position and length of service - Whether he had been aware of retirement age as per respondent company’s policy - Claimant acknowledging retirement age twice in correspondences to the respondent company - Effect of - Previous practise of respondent company - Whether proven by respondent company - Approach to be taken by the Court - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Pernas International Holding Bhd (Mutiara Kuala Lumpur) v. Wan Abu Bakar Wan Ja’affar
(Franklin Goonting) [2008] 1 ILR 582

Constructive dismissal - Transfer - Claimant not consulted on transfer - Whether transfer was effectively a demotion for the claimant - Effect of - Whether proper - Conduct of company - Whether mala fide - Whether fundamental breach of terms of employment - Whether claimant had been justified in refusing to comply with his transfer order - Whether justified claimant walking out of employment - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Ngiam Foon v. Mayflower Acme Tours Sdn Bhd
(Rajendran Nayagam) [2008] 1 ILR 538

Insubordination - Claimant allegedly uttering harsh words against superior - Claimant issued show cause letter - Subsequently apologising for his behaviour - Claimant denying uttering harsh words - Whether proven by the company - Effect of - Whether company had ganged up on claimant to get him out of the company - Whether insubordination proven - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Bahari Hamzah v. Island & Peninsular Berhad
(Mary Shakila Azariah) [2008] 1 ILR 500

Insubordination - Claimant failing to attend domestic inquiry - Claimant stating company biasness against him as reasons for non attendance - Whether reasonable - Effect of - Claimant failing to take heed of recourses open to him - Effect of - Whether court could now reverse company’s decision - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Bahari Hamzah v. Island & Peninsular Berhad
(Mary Shakila Azariah) [2008] 1 ILR 500

Misconduct - Claimants having differences of opinion on creative approach for show - Company not issuing any warning prior to termination for this alleged difference - Whether such differences of opinion had constituted a collective breach on the part of the claimant - Conduct of the company - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Aminah Zaiton Amir Dastan & Anor v. Star RFM Sdn Bhd
(Fredrick Indran XA Nicholas) [2008] 1 ILR 562

Misconduct - Claimant a workman within the ambit of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Non payment of salary by company - Oral contract of service - Whether there had been a breach which had gone to the root of the employment contract - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 2, 20(3) & 30(5)
Cheah Ting Ting v. Tele Marketing Sdn Bhd
(Rajendran Nayagam) [2008] 1 ILR 660

Misconduct - Company citing misconduct against claimant as reasons for retiring her - Whether the company had managed to establish the misconducts against the claimant - Effect of - Conduct of the company - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3) & 30(5)
Cheah Ting Ting v. Tele Marketing Sdn Bhd
(Rajendran Nayagam) 660

Misconduct - Decision taken by board to retire claimant - Whether decision had been sound - Claimant not formally notified - Claimant not paid compensation - Claimant carrying on working in the company - Claimant’s salaries not paid - Claimant’s queries on non payment not answered by company - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 2, 20(3) & 30(5)
Cheah Ting Ting v. Tele Marketing Sdn Bhd
(Rajendran Nayagam) [2008] 1 ILR 660

Misconduct - Gross misconduct - 1st claimant going on air to announce ending of the show - Whether the 1st claimant had been instructed not to make such an announcement - Testimony of COW1 on that point contradicted by tape recorded conversation between him and the claimant - Effect of - Whether the company had succeeded in establishing the gross misconduct on the part of the 1st claimant - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Aminah Zaiton Amir Dastan & Anor v. Star RFM Sdn Bhd
(Fredrick Indran XA Nicholas) [2008] 1 ILR 562

Misconduct - Gross misconduct - Claimant given prior warnings - Whether prior warnings could be taken into account in determining whether claimant had been guilty of the misconducts - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Joseph Manuel Manuel Paulose v. Shangri-La Hotel Kuala Lumpur Sdn Bhd
(Yamuna Menon) [2008] 1 ILR 627

Misconduct - Gross misconduct - Vulgarity on air - Company not getting into trouble with the authorities - Whether that mattered - Whether the company had managed to establish the misconduct against the claimant - Spent offence for which the claimants had been warned - Whether the same offence could be used against the claimants to justify their dismissal - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 2 & 20(3)
Aminah Zaiton Amir Dastan & Anor v. Star RFM Sdn Bhd
(Fredrick Indran XA Nicholas) 562

Misconduct - Gross misconduct - Whether the claimant had been in charge - Effect of - Consumption of alcohol by company staff - Whether the staff had been on duty - Factors to consider - Breach of company’s rules and procedures - Whether there had been a blatant disregard of the same - Effect of - Whether the company had managed to establish the misconducts against the claimant - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 2 & 20(3)
Joseph Manuel Manuel Paulose v. Shangri-La Hotel Kuala Lumpur Sdn Bhd
(Yamuna Menon) [2008] 1 ILR 627

Misconduct - Whether claimants were workmen within the ambit of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Contracts for service or contracts of service - Level of control exercised by company over claimants - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 2 & 20(3)
Aminah Zaiton Amir Dastan & Anor v. Star RFM Sdn Bhd
(Fredrick Indran XA Nicholas) [2008] 1 ILR 562

Misconduct - Whether proven by company - Whether sufficient proof adduced by company - Company witness didn’t see the claimant commit the misconduct - Whether company had successfully discharged its evidential burden - Effect of - Whether company had established a prima facie case against the claimant - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Tasek Ampang Hotel Sdn Bhd (Hotel Flamingo Kuala Lumpur) v. Mahendran Palaniandy
(Zura Yahya) [2008] 1 ILR 595

Notice of termination - Two notices of termination issued within 2 weeks of each other - Effect of - Which termination letter took precedence - Whether Court should look into reasons for 1st termination letter - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Aminah Zaiton Amir Dastan & Anor v. Star RFM Sdn Bhd
(Fredrick Indran XA Nicholas) [2008] 1 ILR 562

Performance - Unsatisfactory performance - Evidence produced by respondent - Whether respondent had succeeded in proving - Whether the claimant had been given notice of poor performance - Previous warning letter - Whether constituted spent offence and could be relied on by respondent - Reliance by respondent on termination clause in agreement - Whether termination simpliciter - Effect of - Whether respondent’s actions mala fides - Whether proven - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Ghani & Co v. Lisa Koh Hui Meng
(Chew Soo Ho) [2008] 1 ILR 669

Performance - Whether claimant had been required to generate sufficient income to cover his costs - Whether proven by the company - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
DTS Trading Sdn Bhd v. Wong Weng Kit
(Amelia Tee Hong Geok Abdullah) [2008] 1 ILR 548

Retrenchment - Company downsizing - Claimant employed by one company but terminated by another - Determination of who the claimant’s employer was - Whether there was a continuation in service - Factors to consider - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
DTS Trading Sdn Bhd v. Wong Weng Kit
(Amelia Tee Hong Geok Abdullah) [2008] 1 ILR 548

Retrenchment - Company downsizing - Whether company was facing real financial difficulties - Financial statement of company showing otherwise - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
DTS Trading Sdn Bhd v. Wong Weng Kit
(Amelia Tee Hong Geok Abdullah) [2008] 1 ILR 548

Procedural impropriety - Whether the DI had been held in breach of the rules of natural justice - Whether claimant’s failure to attend per se rendered it contrary to the rules of natural justice - Claimant wilfully refused to attend - Effect of - DI notes in order - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Bahari Hamzah v. Island & Peninsular Berhad
(Mary Shakila Azariah) [2008] 1 ILR 500

Documentary evidence - Lack of to substantiate company’s case - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Low Seng Suan v. New Subang Transport Sdn Bhd
(Chew Soo Ho) [2008] 1 ILR 520

Documentary evidence - Witness statements in the Domestic Inquiry - When they will be taken into account - Whether evidence of witnesses at the hearing in Court took precedence - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Tasek Ampang Hotel Sdn Bhd (Hotel Flamingo Kuala Lumpur) v. Mahendran Palaniandy
(Zura Yahya) [2008] 1 ILR 595

Pleadings - Respondent claiming that claimant not a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Not pleaded by the respondent - Only raised at submission stage - Whether it had been a question of law which did not need to be pleaded - Effect of - Whether prejudice caused to the claimant - Whether respondent’s reliance on a case after pleadings closed could be accepted - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967 s. 30 & Industrial Court Rules 1967 s. 10(3)
Ghani & Co v. Lisa Koh Hui Meng
(Chew Soo Ho) [2008] 1 ILR 669

Remedies - Compensation/Quantum of damages - When claimant had commenced employment - How to determine - Whether there had been a continuation of service from first employer to the second employer - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
DTS Trading Sdn Bhd v. Wong Weng Kit
(Amelia Tee Hong Geok Abdullah) [2008] 1 ILR 548

Award - Claimant an undischarged bankrupt - Whether company able to pay - Whether financial difficulties faced by company - Effect of - Whether constituted special circumstances justifying stay - Company seeking to vary award -Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 56(1)
Kristmas Aknee v. Oricon Sdn Bhd
(Chew Soo Ho) [2008] 1 ILR 485

Compensation - Both claimants were part-timers - Fixed sum of compensation - How arrived at - Factors to consider - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Aminah Zaiton Amir Dastan & Anor v. Star RFM Sdn Bhd
(Fredrick Indran XA Nicholas) [2008] 1 ILR 562

Compensation - Calculation of - Contributory conduct of the claimant - Deductions - Factors to consider - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 30(5)
Cheah Ting Ting v. Tele Marketing Sdn Bhd
(Rajendran Nayagam) [2008] 1 ILR 660

Quantum of damages - Whether trip commission was part of wages - Under what circumstances was the trip commission earned - Factors to consider - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3) & Employment Act 1950, s. 2
Low Seng Suan v. New Subang Transport Sdn Bhd
(Chew Soo Ho) [2008] 1 ILR 520

Quantum of damages - Whether there had been contributory conduct on part of the claimant - Scaling down of the award - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Tasek Ampang Hotel Sdn Bhd (Hotel Flamingo Kuala Lumpur) v. Mahendran Palaniandy
(Zura Yahya) [2008] 1 ILR 595

Reinstatement - Whether appropriate - Factors to consider - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Tasek Ampang Hotel Sdn Bhd (Hotel Flamingo Kuala Lumpur) v. Mahendran Palaniandy
(Zura Yahya) [2008] 1 ILR 595

Definition of wages - Whether trip commission came within the exceptions to the definition - Employment Act 1950, s. 2
Low Seng Suan v. New Subang Transport Sdn Bhd
(Chew Soo Ho) [2008] 1 ILR 520

Keterangan bertulis - Keterangan boleh diterima - Sama ada dokumen tersebut termasuk di dalam golongan "qualified privilege" - Sama ada yang menuntut berjaya membuktikkan bahawa syarikat telah bersetuju akan pendedahan dokumen tersebut secara sukarela - Kesannya - Akta Mahkamah Perusahaan 1967, s. 20 (3) & Akta Keterangan 1950 ss. 126(1) dan 126
Puncak Niaga (M) Sdn Bhd lwn. Mohammad Mus Atom Arss
(Abd Rahman Abdol) [2008] 1 ILR 656

Ketidakhadiran - Salahlaku - Kegagalan hadir bekerja tanpa kebenaran - Yang menuntut sakit - Responden gagal diberitahu - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja adalah tanpa alasan atau sebab yang adil - Akta Mahkamah Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(3) & Akta Pekerja 1955 s. 15(2)
Guocera Tile Industries (Kapar) Sdn Bhd lwn. Thanaletchumy Subramaniam
(Kamaruzaman Ab Jalil) [2008] 1 ILR 490

Ketidakhadiran - Salahlaku - Sama ada rekod kedatangan yang menuntut yang lalu adalah relevan - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja adalah tanpa alasan atau sebab yang adil - Akta Mahkamah Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(3) & Akta Pekerja 1955 s. 15(2)
Guocera Tile Industries (Kapar) Sdn Bhd lwn. Thanaletchumy Subramaniam
(Kamaruzaman Ab Jalil) [2008] 1 ILR 490

Ketidakhadiran - Salahlaku - Yang menuntut gagal untuk mengemukakan sijil sakit - Sebabnya - Apa yang sepatutnya dilakukan oleh yang menuntut - Kegagalannya berbuat demikian - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja adalah tanpa alasan atau sebab yang adil - Akta Mahkamah Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(3)
Guocera Tile Industries (Kapar) Sdn Bhd lwn. Thanaletchumy Subramaniam
(Kamaruzaman Ab Jalil) [2008] 1 ILR 490

Kecacatan prosidur - Sama ada siasatan dalaman telah dijalankan secara teratur - Jumlah keahlian panel yang diperlukan - Cuma seorang ahli panel - Kesannya - Sama ada responden berjaya membuktikan kes prima facie terhadap yang menuntut - Sama ada pembuangan kerja adalah tanpa alasan atau sebab yang adil - Akta Mahkamah Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(3) & Akta Pekerja 1955 s. 15(2)
Guocera Tile Industries (Kapar) Sdn Bhd lwn. Thanaletchumy Subramaniam
(Kamaruzaman Ab Jalil) [2008] 1 ILR 490

ILR Bulletin
To Subscribe/Unsubscribe go to http://www.cljlaw.com/ilrsubscribefrm.asp

Copyright ©1997 - 2008 CLJ Legal Network Sdn Bhd (192353 V)
Email: enquiries@cljlaw.com Phone: 603-4270-5400 Fax No : 603-4270 5401 & 603-4270 5402