tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-84545684776738839232024-03-05T08:30:34.454-08:00INDUSTRIAL LAW & DISPUTESThis site contains legal material relating to Employer/Employee Relations.All HR Executives are advised to be familiar with the Employment Act and the Industrial Relations Act 1967.
A word of advice for all HR Executives- treat the wounds as soon as they appear-Some diseases need immediate attention due to their infectious nature. The end result may lead to a substantial Court Order or an out of Court Settlement which burns the Companys pockets.
Vijay-LLB,CLP,LLM.A.VIJAYCHANDRANhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16380796475084172439noreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8454568477673883923.post-6745277023371926292016-08-25T00:08:00.000-07:002016-08-25T00:08:10.793-07:00WELTEX CASE 1998 1 LNS 258<h4>
In the case of Weltex Knitwear Industries Sdn Bhd vLaw Kar Toy [1998] 1 LNS 258 it was stated by Abdul Kadir Sulaiman J. </h4>
<h4>
"...where the factum of dismissal is in dispute it is for the workman to establish that he was dismissed by the employer."</h4>
A.VIJAYCHANDRANhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16380796475084172439noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8454568477673883923.post-6054274423689757872013-08-27T19:54:00.001-07:002013-08-27T19:54:31.069-07:00STANDARD OF PROOF<br />
TELEKOM MALAYSIA KAWASAN UTARA V KRISHNAN KUTTY SANGUNI NAIR & ANOR<br />
[2002] 3 CLJ 314<br />
( Theft of Company property)<br />
COURT OF APPEAL The Industrial Court must not be burdened with the technicalities concerning the different standards of proof or the rules of evidence or procedure that are applied ina court of law.The Industrial Court must be allowed to conduct its proceedings as a'court of arbitration' with the necessary flexibility to arrive at a decision...<br />
<br />
standard of proof is the civil standard- balance of probabilities<br />
<br />
imbangan kebarangkalian - balance of probabilities<br />
<br />
melangkaui batasan keraguan- beyond reasonable doubt<br />
<br />
mahkamah timbangtara--Court of arbitrationA.VIJAYCHANDRANhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16380796475084172439noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8454568477673883923.post-25958836199523765732013-06-25T23:54:00.003-07:002013-06-25T23:54:49.051-07:00MIsconduct<br />
<strong><u>Wong Yuen Hock v Hong Leong Assurance [1995] 3 CLJ 344</u></strong><br />
<br />
the function of the Industrial Court in dismissal cases on a reference under S20 is twofold;<br />
<br />
<strong><u>firstly,</u></strong> to determine whether the misconduct complained of by the employer has been established and <strong><u>secondly </u></strong>whether the proven misconduct constitutes just cause or excuse for the dismissal.<br />
<br />
A.VIJAYCHANDRANhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16380796475084172439noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8454568477673883923.post-17205976018392508772012-12-01T22:35:00.002-08:002012-12-01T22:35:19.674-08:00CD<strong><u>AFINDI RAMLI & ANOR [2012]1 ILR 262</u></strong><br />
<br />
w/r transfer order is in breach of fundamental terms of contract<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Based on the terms of the Claimant's contract of emplyment, the Claimants were not employed to be stationed permanently at Genting Highlands exclusively but were subjected to transfer based on the transfer clause.</div>
A.VIJAYCHANDRANhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16380796475084172439noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8454568477673883923.post-29932152760365391742012-12-01T22:30:00.000-08:002012-12-01T22:30:39.862-08:00PRIMA FACIE<strong><u>WELTEX KNOTWEAR INDUSTRIES SDN BHD LAW KAR TOY & ANOR [1998] 1 LNS 258</u></strong><br />
<br />
All dismissal is prima facie without just cause or excuse.A.VIJAYCHANDRANhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16380796475084172439noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8454568477673883923.post-74619024015962442602012-12-01T22:27:00.001-08:002012-12-01T22:27:32.201-08:00FORCED RESIGNATIONRG CHANDRASEGARAN V LIPO CORPORATION [2012] 1 ILR 241<br />
<br />
Based on the principles found in <strong><u>Harpers Trading (M) Sdn Bhd Butterworth v Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja Pekerja Perdagangan [1988] 2 ILR 314</u></strong> the resignation letter was not voluntary but due to the pressure and threat imposed upon him.<br />
<br />
Sulaiman Ismail, Industrial Court Penang A.VIJAYCHANDRANhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16380796475084172439noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8454568477673883923.post-46408811047338261162012-11-24T20:35:00.002-08:002012-11-24T20:35:18.109-08:00B. R. Ghaiye- p 712<br />
<strong><u>And as to absence of employee without permission B.R Ghaiye at page 712 said </u></strong><br />
<br />
<br />
" No employee can claim as a matter of right leave of absence without permission and when there might not be any permisision for the same. Remaining absent without any permission is therfore, gross violation of discipline..."<br />
<br />
This issue was discussed in the case of Pan Global Textiles Bhd Pulau Pinang v Ang Beng Teik [2002] 1 CLJ 181 ( at page 187)A.VIJAYCHANDRANhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16380796475084172439noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8454568477673883923.post-80706406387657812362012-06-17T21:24:00.006-07:002012-06-17T21:24:55.527-07:00TAN SEE GUAN V PEMBINAAN INFRA E & J SDN. BHD2011 4 ILR<br />
<br />
<u><b>Issue - Fixed Term Contract</b></u><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Once it is established that there is a fixed term contract, the dissolution of the contract upon reaching the expiry date of the fixed term or upon any extension of that expiry date would spell the end of the Claimants tenure with the Company</div>
<br />
<br />[see M Vasagam Muthusamy v Kesatuan Pekerja-Pekerja Resorts World, Pahang & Anor ]A.VIJAYCHANDRANhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16380796475084172439noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8454568477673883923.post-44707987513269379802012-05-29T22:53:00.004-07:002012-05-29T22:53:49.953-07:00GENERAL CONTAINERS S/B<strong><u>GENERAL CONTAINERS S/B V YIP SIEW LING [1994] 2 ILR 912 (AWARD NO 418 OF 1994)</u></strong><br />
<br />
It is a trite principal of Industrial Law that only a workman who has been dismissed by his employer may seek the remedies available under S20 of the IRA 1967.A.VIJAYCHANDRANhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16380796475084172439noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8454568477673883923.post-12097293652849003402011-10-16T21:33:00.000-07:002011-10-16T21:34:41.950-07:00[2011] 1 ILR -698<span style="font-size: large;">ZAINAL ABIDIN ZAKARIA V ARUS DIMENSI SDN. BHD - CASE NO:1/1-788/10</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">SUSILA SITHAMPARAM</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">INDUSTRIALCOURT: Procedure- Parties- Joinder</span><br />
<br />
<ol><li><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">In an application for joinder under the said Act, the test in Hotchtief's case had to be satisfied before a Director could be joined as a party.</span></div></li>
<li><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">There are 2 limbs in Hotchtief's case. The first is whether the party to be joined is interested in the proceedings and the second is whether the employer is able to represent itself ( himself?) in the proceedings.</span></div></li>
</ol>A.VIJAYCHANDRANhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16380796475084172439noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8454568477673883923.post-32480908769072053642011-10-12T20:31:00.000-07:002011-10-12T20:31:25.752-07:00[2011] 1 ILR 507- SUNNY KHOO<div style="color: #6aa84f; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><u><b>SUNNY KHOO V YB MENTERI SUMBER MANUSIA, MALAYSIA, KUALA LUMPUR</b></u></span></div><div style="color: #6aa84f; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><u><b>HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR AZIAH ALI J</b></u></span></div><div style="color: #6aa84f; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><u><b>[JUDICIAL REVISION] NO:R1-25-143-2008] 1ST NOVEMBER 2010</b></u></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Administrative Law- JR- Statutory Body - Decision of Minister not to refer representation on dismissal to IC for adjudication - Whether decision justified in view of reinstatement offer made- IRA 1967 s20(3)</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The applicant applied for JR under O53 Rules of the HC 1980 for an order for certiorari to quash the decision made by the Minister under S20(3) of the IRA 1967 <i>in refusing to refer the applicant's representation to the IC for adjudication.</i></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Held: the applicant refused the offer of re-instatement to his previous post with the same terms and conditions of employment. If the employer reinstates or offers to reinstate the employee to his former employment without loss of any benefits or privileges, there is simply nothing to refer because of the re-instatement or the offer thereof.</span></div>A.VIJAYCHANDRANhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16380796475084172439noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8454568477673883923.post-78633815168273457722011-10-11T21:58:00.000-07:002011-10-11T21:59:07.398-07:00THE LAW ON INSUBORDINATION -DISOBEDIENCE<span style="font-size: large;">GOODYEAR BHD & NATIONAL UNION OF EMPLOYEES IN COMPANIES MANUFACTURING RUBBER PRODUCTS (AWARD 63 OF 1986)</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">the IC in this case took the approach, that an act of disobedience can justify dismissal only if it is of a nature which goes to show in effect that the servant is repudiating the contract or one of its essential conditions. The disobedience must have the quality that it is willful, in other words a deliberate flouting of essential contractual conditions.</span>A.VIJAYCHANDRANhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16380796475084172439noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8454568477673883923.post-19138345054483291542011-10-11T21:48:00.000-07:002011-10-11T21:49:23.260-07:00[2011] 1 ILR 320<span style="font-size: large;">ADAM LAU CHEE SENG V AMBIENCE LIGHTING (M) SDN. BHD.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">DISMISSAL- INSUBORDINATION</span><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The Company had sent him s show cause cause letter asking him to explain why action should not be taken against him and giving him 7 days to reply but he had been issued a dismissal letter 2 days later.Thus the claimant had not been given the opportunity to reply which also had not been right.Thus taking all the evidence and circumstances into consideration, the claimant's dismissal had been without just cause or excuse.</span></div>A.VIJAYCHANDRANhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16380796475084172439noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8454568477673883923.post-85415182579563101822011-10-11T21:42:00.000-07:002011-10-11T21:42:13.798-07:00TIME FACTOR<span style="color: #3d85c6; font-size: large;"><strong><u>JOEDY KANNIAH V POLIKLINIK VETERINA SDN. BHD & ORS [1997] 5 CLJ 237</u></strong></span>A.VIJAYCHANDRANhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16380796475084172439noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8454568477673883923.post-32920262261217090782011-10-11T21:31:00.000-07:002011-10-11T21:33:52.840-07:00[2011] 1 ILR 249<strong><u><span style="color: #6aa84f; font-size: large;">CHEAW HON LEONG V MULLER MARTINI (MALAYSIA) SDN. BHD</span></u></strong><br />
<strong><u><span style="color: #6aa84f; font-size: large;">YAMUNA MENON [CASE NO 24(5)/4-2131/04]</span></u></strong><br />
<br />
<span style="color: red; font-size: large;">DISMISSAL- Unsatisfactory performance /whether proven by the Company</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Held :-For the Claimant. The issue of confidentiality had not been pleaded and neither had it been given as a reason for the Claimant's dismissal.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">[Dismissal without just cause or excuse- Claimant awarded backwages and compensation in lieu of re-instatement in the sum of RM532,500/ ]</span>A.VIJAYCHANDRANhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16380796475084172439noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8454568477673883923.post-91706804331906581312011-10-10T22:02:00.000-07:002011-10-10T22:03:55.762-07:00[2011] 3 ILR 257<div style="color: red;"><span style="font-size: large;"><u><b>GURU DHILLION V PROFITABLE PLOTS SDN. BHD [FRANLIN GOONTING]</b></u></span></div><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Dismissal- <b><i style="color: #0b5394;">Poor Performance</i></b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Held: For the Claimant- Dismissal without just cause or excuse</span><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The Claimant's testimony, which had been corroborated by the documents tendered to the Court had stood unrebutted by the respondent.The respondent had given non-performance as the reason for the dismissal and hence the onus had been on then to prove it. From the evidence, the reason had not been made out and following Goon Kwee Phoy, the inevitable conclusion had been that the dismissal had been without just cause and excuse.</span></div>A.VIJAYCHANDRANhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16380796475084172439noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8454568477673883923.post-67593670278066103282011-10-09T21:03:00.000-07:002011-10-09T21:14:24.766-07:00PLEADINGS<strong><u><span style="color: red; font-size: large;">RANJIT KAUR A/P S GOPAL SINGH V HOTEL EXCELSIOR (M) SDN. BHD [2010] 6 MLJ 1 (RAUS SHARIF FCJ)</span></u></strong><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Issues:- Labour Law- Industrial Court-Finding of Fact- Issue not pleaded in Claimant's SOC- Finding made based on umpleaded issue- whether Industrial Court free to raise issues raised in pleadings-whether S30 (5) of the IRA 1967 could save Claimant's defective pleadings --IRA 1967 S30(5).</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The IRA 1967 could not be used to overide or circumvent the basic rules of pleadings. The IC, like the Civil Courts must confine itself to the four corners of the pleadings.Pleadings in the IC are as important as in the civil courts.The Claimant must plead his case and the IC must decide on the Claimant's pleaded case. This is important in order to prevent the element of surprise and provide room for the other party to adduce evidence once a fact or an issue is pleaded.The IC's duty to act according to equity, good conscience and substantial merits of the case without regard to technicalities and legal form under Sect 30(5), does not give the IC the right to ignore the Industrial Court Rules 1967 made under the principal act (see paras 28-29) R Rama Chandran v The Industrial Court of Malaysia & Anor [1997] 1 MLJ 145 followed.</span></div>A.VIJAYCHANDRANhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16380796475084172439noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8454568477673883923.post-62016608358040707932011-10-07T00:19:00.000-07:002011-10-07T00:19:53.551-07:00CD- SYARIKAT PERMODALAN<div style="text-align: justify;"><strong><u>SYARIKAT PERMODALAN KEBANGSAAN BHD V MOHAMED JOHARI ABDUL RAHMAN --</u></strong><strong><u>INDUSTRIAL COURT KUALA LUMPUR- N RAJASEGARAN AWARF NO 921 OF 2004 [CASE NO:15/4-629/01]</u></strong></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><strong><u>Held :For the Claimant</u></strong></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">In order for an employee to claim CD, 4 conditionsmust be met:-</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><ol><li><div style="text-align: justify;">there must be a breach of contract by the employer</div></li>
<li><div style="text-align: justify;">the breach must be sufficiently important so as to justify the employee resigning</div></li>
<li><div style="text-align: justify;">the employee must leave in response to the breach and not for some unconnected reason</div></li>
<li><div style="text-align: justify;">the employee msut not delay too long in terminating the contract in response to the employees breach</div></li>
</ol>A.VIJAYCHANDRANhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16380796475084172439noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8454568477673883923.post-88813263824369507732011-10-05T22:32:00.000-07:002011-10-05T22:32:48.803-07:00[2011] 1 ILR 490<span style="font-size: large;">SUBRAMANYAH AJ KARUPPIAH V BANK NEGARA MALAYSIA</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">CA- PUTRAJAYA - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">The officers and employees of BNM are appointed under S15 of the Central Bank of </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Malaysia Act 1958 . They are subject to the terms and conditions of service as may be determined by BNM.The appellant did not fall within the categories of public officers or employees in Art 132, and thus was not eligible for the protection and benefits under the General Orders.</span>A.VIJAYCHANDRANhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16380796475084172439noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8454568477673883923.post-42576247449130424002011-10-04T21:28:00.000-07:002011-10-05T21:00:13.536-07:00[2011] 3 ILR 40<strong><u><span style="color: red; font-size: large;">YUSOF AHMAD V TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD </span></u></strong><br />
<strong><u><span style="color: red; font-size: large;">INDUSTRIAL COURT KUALA LUMPUR</span></u></strong><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: large;">Issue: Complainant alleging non-compliance of Article 19 of the CA.</span></strong><br />
<strong><span style="font-size: large;">Held: Dismissing the application.</span></strong><br />
<strong><span style="font-size: large;">This matter should have been brought up as a trade dispute under Sect.26 of the Act as opposd to a complaint of non-compliance under Sect.56</span></strong>A.VIJAYCHANDRANhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16380796475084172439noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8454568477673883923.post-1939345453188043462011-10-03T21:52:00.000-07:002011-10-03T23:43:21.075-07:00[2011] 3 ILR 1<strong><u><span style="color: red; font-size: large;">PORT VIEW SEAFOOD VILLAGE SDN. BHD V ROCELYN TUBAL RANESES</span></u></strong><br />
High Court Sabah &Sarawak , KK David Wong Dak Wah J [KII (A)-20-2010-II] 22nd November 2010<br />
<br />
LABOUR LAW: Wages - Service Charge- Whether a part of Wages- Labour Ordinance ( Sabah) s2<br />
<br />
The pivotal words in s2(3) of the Labour Ordinance were "work done in respect of his contract of service". As long as payments were made because of that service, they fell within the definition of wages. In the present case, the "service charge" was payment made for "work done in respect of his contract of service"" (PC in <strong>Peter Anthony Pereira & Anor v Hotel Jayapuri Bhd & Anor [1987] 1 CLJ 14;1987 CLJ (Rep) 12 PC</strong>A.VIJAYCHANDRANhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16380796475084172439noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8454568477673883923.post-40973055761442304442011-09-05T22:41:00.000-07:002011-09-05T22:41:26.146-07:00CD ISSUES<strong><u>THE LAW ON CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL</u></strong><br />
<br />
Western Excavating v Sharp [1978] IQB 761<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">If the employer is guity of conduct which is a significant breach going to the root of the contract of employment, or that the employer no longers intends to be bound by one or more of the essential terms of the contract , then the emp[loyee is entitled to traet himself as discharged from any further performance.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">This case was cited with approval in the Supreme Court Case of Wong Chee Hong v Cathay Organisation [1988] 1 CLJ 45 WHERE IT WAS STATED AS FOLLOWS:-</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The common law has always recognised the right of an employee to terminate his contract of service and therfore to consider himself as dischrged from further obligation if the employer is guilty of such breach as effects the foundation of the contract or if the employer has evinced or shown an intention not to be bound by it any longer.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">(ii) A single act or series of acts.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Lewis v Motorworld Garages Ltd. [1986] I.C.R. 157</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Implied term of trust and confidence</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">It is now trite law that the function of the Industrial court is to attain social justice and not legal justice.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Dr. A. Dutt v Assunta Hospital [1981] LNS 5.</div>A.VIJAYCHANDRANhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16380796475084172439noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8454568477673883923.post-20222756158928619372011-03-07T00:06:00.001-08:002011-03-07T00:09:10.650-08:00ON POOR PERFORMANCEPOOR PERFORMANCE- PERKHIDMATAN YANG TIDAK MEMUASKAN<br />
PEKERJA PERCUBAAN-PROBATIONER<br />
SALAHLAKU- MISCONDUCTA.VIJAYCHANDRANhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16380796475084172439noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8454568477673883923.post-27413881517798379912011-03-06T23:59:00.000-08:002011-03-06T23:59:30.218-08:00S33 (1) IRA 1967<div style="text-align: justify;">ENABLES ANY PARTY BOUND BY A COURT'S AWARD TO APPLY TO THE COURT FOR A DECISION ON ANY QUESTIONS THAT ARISES AS TO THE INTERPRETATION OF THE SAID AWARD.</div>A.VIJAYCHANDRANhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16380796475084172439noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8454568477673883923.post-68199320017286555372011-03-04T21:58:00.000-08:002011-03-04T21:59:18.732-08:00VIKAY TECHNOLOGY SDN. BHD ANG ENG SEW [1993] 1 ILR 90<div style="text-align: justify;">AS LONG AS THE EMPLOYER IS REASONABLY SATISFIED THAT THE EMPLOYEE IS NOT SUITABLE FOR THE JOB HE MAY BE REMOVED. SUITABILITY IS NOT JUST BASED ON PERFORMANCE OF THE EMPLOYEE BUT ALSO HIS CONDUCT, BEHAVIOUR AND ATTITUDE IN RELATION TO THE JOB HE IS EMPLOYED.</div>A.VIJAYCHANDRANhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16380796475084172439noreply@blogger.com0