CLJ Law MALAYSIA
http://www.cljlaw.com
ILR Bulletin, Issue 2009, Vol 08
September 2009
|
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
INDUSTRIAL LAW REPORTS ISSUE 8 of 2009
AWARDS REPORTED
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SUBJECT INDEX
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Disciplinary proceedings - Public servant - Right to oral hearing - Governing principles - Case laws
- Federal Constitution, art. 135(2) - Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) (Chapter "D") General Orders 1980, GO 26
Asriyah Sairy v. Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Awam, Malaysia & Anor
(Kang Hwee Gee J) [2009] 3 ILR 225
Exercise of administrative powers - Dismissal from service - Request for oral hearing denied -
Committee of inquiry not appointed despite peculiar facts of case - Whether plaintiff afforded a fair hearing - Whether
disciplinary authority committed procedural unfairness - Whether dismissal null and void - Federal Constitution, art.
135(2) - Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) (Chapter "D") General Orders 1980, GO 26
Asriyah Sairy v. Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Awam, Malaysia & Anor
(Kang Hwee Gee J) [2009] 3 ILR 225
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Public servants - Dismissal - Request for oral hearing denied - Committee of inquiry not appointed
despite peculiar facts of case - Whether plaintiff afforded a fair hearing - Whether disciplinary authority committed
procedural unfairness - Whether dismissal null and void - Federal Constitution, art. 135(2) - Public Officers (Conduct
and Discipline) (Chapter "D") General Orders 1980, GO 26
Asriyah Sairy v. Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Awam, Malaysia & Anor
(Kang Hwee Gee J) [2009] 3 ILR 225
DISMISSAL
Breach of company rules and policies - Breach of fiduciary duties - Claimant paying himself bonus -
Board of Directors approval not sought - Claimant paying himself bonuses in the past - Whether company had knowledge of
it - No issue taken by company before - Effect of - Position held by the claimant in the company - Whether he had the
authority to issue bonus payments to himself - Effect of - Whether it had been a willful disregard for procedure -
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, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Chow Hong Lit v. Fluid Systems Sdn Bhd
(Mary Shakila Azariah) [2009] 3 ILR 280
Breach of company rules and policies - Breach of fiduciary duties - Claimant paying himself bonus
without the approval of the Board of Directors - Calculation of bonus payment - Whether it had been agreed to by the
company - Past practice of the company - Whether it had been an established practice of the company - Effect of -
Whether his actions had been a breach of the entrustment of company funds - Position held by the claimant - His
functions - 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, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) and Companies Act 1965 Table A
of the Fourth Schedule arts. 92 & 93
Chow Hong Lit v. Fluid Systems Sdn Bhd
(Mary Shakila Azariah) [2009] 3 ILR 280
Breach of company rules and policies - Conflict of interest with company’s business - Claimant
signing a Scholarship Agreement with the company - Terms of the Agreement - Whether it had been fraught with ambiguity -
Effect of - Whether the claimant had still remained bonded to the company - Interpretation of the Agreement - Effect of
- Duration of the Agreement - Whether the claimant had been in breach of the terms of the Agreement - 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)
Lim See Wai v. England Optical Group (M) Sdn Bhd
(Amelia Tee Hong Geok Abdullah)
[2009] 3 ILR 343
Breach of company rules and policies - Conflict of interest with company’s business - Claimant
incorporating and holding shares in a company carrying on a business of a similar nature to the company - Whether
claimant had knowledge - Claimant alleging his name being used by his father - Whether proven by the claimant - Effect
of - Whether the company had proven the misconduct against the claimant - 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)
Lim See Wai v. England Optical Group (M) Sdn Bhd
(Amelia Tee Hong Geok Abdullah)
[2009] 3 ILR 343
Breach of company rules and policies - Dishonesty - Whether claimant had been in breach of her
obligations as per the Station Information Manual - Interpretation of terms - Claimant in possession of excess
cigarettes - Whether that per se had constituted a misconduct - 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)
Usha Kumari Ram Lall v. Malaysia Airline System Berhad
(Franklin Goonting) [2009] 3 ILR 407
Breach of company rules and policies - Dishonesty - Claimant in possession of excess cigarettes -
Whether she had admitted to it - Claimant replying to show cause letter and annexing corroborative affidavit - Whether
it had been taken into account by the respondent when dismissing her - 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)
Usha Kumari Ram Lall v. Malaysia Airline System Berhad
(Franklin Goonting) [2009] 3 ILR 407
Breach of company rules and policies - Fraud or Dishonesty - STA usage of company employees -
Restrictions placed on usage - Whether the claimant had been aware - Effect of - Claimant using deceit and getting his
colleague to use his STA privilege for a third party - Representations made by the claimant - Whether it had constituted
blatant dishonesty - Claimant’s colleague relying on claimant’s representations and getting into trouble - Subsequently
dismissed from service - 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)
Samat Lakapi v. Malaysian Airline System Berhad
(P Iruthayaraj D Pappusamy) [2009] 3
ILR 419
Breach of company rules and policies - Fraud or Dishonesty - Whether the claimant had acted
deceitfully - Meaning of deceit - Effect of - Conduct of the claimant - Position held by the claimant in the company -
What had been expected of him - Effect of - Whether the claimant had dutifully discharged his responsibilities - Whether
the company had been deprived of earning maximum revenue - Effect of - Whether the company had proven the misconduct
against the claimant - 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)
Samat Lakapi v. Malaysian Airline System Berhad
(P Iruthayaraj D Pappusamy) [2009] 3
ILR 419
Constructive dismissal - Salary - Claimant’s salary not paid - Claimant’s salary payable by HQ
where she was supposed to report - Claimant failing to report - Whether claimant had knowledge of it - Whether her
contentions that her salary had been unpaid had merit - Effect of - Whether there had been a fundamental breach of terms
of employment by the company - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Lucy Liduin v. Clinipath (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
(P Iruthayaraj D Pappusamy) [2009] 3
ILR 387
Constructive dismissal - Status - Treatment of the claimant - Claimant made to sit next to
Accounts clerk and in the common area - Position held by the claimant - Claimant holding a managerial position - Effect
of - Conduct of company - Whether fundamental breach of terms of employment - Whether justified claimant walking out of
employment - Whether claimant had condoned the breach - Claimant walking out immediately - Effect of - Whether dismissal
without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
T Mahendranathan v. KCH Holdings Sdn Bhd
(Chew Soo Ho) [2009] 3 ILR 313
Constructive dismissal - Transfer - Claimant making demands - Whether they had been reasonable -
Effect of - Whether claimant would have acceded to the transfer had her demands been met - Contents of her letters -
Attitude of the claimant - Effect of - Whether there had been a fundamental breach of terms of employment by the company
- Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Lucy Liduin v. Clinipath (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
(P Iruthayaraj D Pappusamy) [2009] 3
ILR 387
Constructive dismissal - Transfer - Claimant given directive to transfer - Claimant refusing to
transfer - Continuing to report at Tg. Aru - Whether it had amounted to a defiance of the company’s transfer order -
Effect of - Whether claimant’s conduct had amounted to an affirmation of the contract of employment - Effect of -
Whether there had been a fundamental breach of terms of employment by the company - Whether dismissal without just cause
or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Lucy Liduin v. Clinipath (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
(P Iruthayaraj D Pappusamy) [2009] 3
ILR 387
Constructive dismissal - Transfer - No express policy on payment of expenses on transfer -
Whether it could be implied - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether there had been a fundamental breach of terms of
employment by the company - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Lucy Liduin v. Clinipath (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
(P Iruthayaraj D Pappusamy) [2009] 3
ILR 387
Constructive dismissal - Transfer - Whether claimant’s transfer had been bona fide -
Whether it had been part of the company’s expansion plans - Effect of - Whether claimant had adduced any evidence to
corroborate her allegation that her transfer had been mala fide - Effect of - Whether there had been a
fundamental breach of terms of employment by the company - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial
Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Lucy Liduin v. Clinipath (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
(P Iruthayaraj D Pappusamy) [2009] 3
ILR 387
Constructive dismissal - Transfer - Whether it had been an offer or directive - Factors to
consider - Effect of - Company’s words and actions - Whether within company’s discretion to transfer the claimant -
Whether there had been any mala fide intent on part of the company - Effect of - Intention of the company -
Whether there had been a fundamental breach of terms of employment by the company - Whether dismissal without just cause
or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Lucy Liduin v. Clinipath (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
(P Iruthayaraj D Pappusamy) [2009] 3
ILR 387
Constructive dismissal - Whether proven by the claimant - Claimant not threatened of forced to
resign - Claimant voluntarily resigning - Effect of - Whether there had been a dismissal - Industrial Relations Act
1967, s. 30(5)
Datuk Dr Chew Han Ching v. Putera Capital Berhad
(Eddie Yeo Soon Chye) [2009] 3 ILR 329
Constructive dismissal - Whether proven by the claimant - Whether the company had breached a
fundamental term of the claimant’s contract which had gone to the root of the contract - Effect of - Industrial
Relations Act 1967
Datuk Dr Chew Han Ching v. Putera Capital Berhad
(Eddie Yeo Soon Chye) [2009] 3 ILR 329
Notice of termination - Forced resignation - Not pleaded by the claimant - Effect of - Whether
claimant’s resignation obtained under undue influence, coercion or force - Whether proven by the claimant - Effect of -
Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Datuk Dr Chew Han Ching v. Putera Capital Berhad
(Eddie Yeo Soon Chye) [2009] 3 ILR 329
Notice of termination - Forced resignation - Whether proven by the claimant - Claimant
voluntarily signing undated letter of resignation and depositing it with the company - Whether the claimant had been
aware of the effects - Position held by the claimant in the company - Effect of - Claimant not taking any action to
withdraw resignation - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss.
20(3) & 30(5)
Datuk Dr Chew Han Ching v. Putera Capital Berhad
(Eddie Yeo Soon Chye) [2009] 3 ILR 329
Performance - Claimant sending e-mail to company indicating she no longer wished to continue with
one publication - Contents of the e-mail - Whether it had been a demand or a request - Factors to consider - Effect of -
Claimant still handling the publication after sending out the e-mail - Whether charge proven by the company - Effect of
- Whether the company had taken her protests seriously - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial
Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Panpac Media (M) Sdn Bhd v. Sasikala T P D Nair
(Teo Say Eng) [2009] 3 ILR 263
Performance - Unsatisfactory performance - Whether proven by the company - Claimant unable to
improve the profitability of the publication - Terms and conditions of the claimant’s employment contract - Job scope of
the claimant not specified - Effect of - Whether the profitability of the publication had been under her job scope -
Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Panpac Media (M) Sdn Bhd v. Sasikala T P D Nair
(Teo Say Eng) [2009] 3 ILR 263
Performance - Unsatisfactory performance - Closure of publication due to lack of profitability -
Whether claimant had been responsible for the profitability of the publication - Effect of - Whether company had proven
the charge against the claimant - Effect of - Whether it had constituted good grounds for terminating the claimant’s
employment - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Panpac Media (M) Sdn Bhd v. Sasikala T P D Nair
(Teo Say Eng) [2009] 3 ILR 263
EVIDENCE
Documentary evidence - To show lack of profitability of publication - Admissibility - Originals not
produced and makers of documents not called as witnesses - Effect of - Quality of evidence - Whether documents should be
admissible - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Panpac Media (M) Sdn Bhd v. Sasikala T P D Nair
(Teo Say Eng) [2009] 3 ILR 263
INDUSTRIAL COURT
Procedure - Parties - Joinder - Complainant seeking to join liquidators - Reasons for the same -
Whether tenable - Whether liquidators could be held personally liable - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Heng Kiah Woo v. Consolidated Farms Berhad
(Franklin Goonting) [2009] 3 ILR 237
Procedure - Parties - Joinder - Complainant seeking to join director of respondent company -
Whether director had been directing mind or alter ego of the company - Number of shares held by the director sought to
be joined - Effect of - Reasons for joining the director to the proceedings - Whether tenable - Effect of - Industrial
Relations Act 1967
Heng Kiah Woo v. Consolidated Farms Berhad
(Franklin Goonting) [2009] 3 ILR 237
Procedure - Locus standi - Whether claimant’s solicitors had represented one of the
respondent’s associate companies - Separate legal entities - Whether a conflict of interest existed - Capacity of
representation - Effect of - Whether the claimant’s solicitors should be allowed to represent the claimant - Effect of -
Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978, rr. 3, 4, 5 and 16
Abdul Ghaffar Cheong Abdullah v. WRP Speciality Products Sdn Bhd
(Franklin Goonting) [2009] 3 ILR 276
Procedure - Reference to High Court - 7 questions sought to be referred - Whether the questions
sought to be referred had merited a reference - Merits of the case undecided - Effect of - Factors to consider - Whether
requirements of s. 33A of the IRA had been satisfied - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 8(2A), 20(1),
20(2), 20(3), 26, 29, 29(g), 30, 30(4), 33A(1), 52(2), Part VI & Legal Profession Act 1976, ss. 47, 47(1), 98(3)
Lim Eye Thun v. Majlis Peguam Malaysia
(Chew Soo Ho) [2009] 3 ILR 243
Remedies - Compensation - Benefits enjoyed by the claimant during his employment - Whether it had
been on a reimbursable basis - No evidence that expenses incurred - Whether equitable to award - Effect of - Whether
dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 30(5)
T Mahendranathan v. KCH Holdings Sdn Bhd
(Chew Soo Ho) [2009] 3 ILR 313
Remedies - Compensation - Bonus payments - Whether claimant had been entitled to it contractually
- Terms of the claimant’s contract of employment - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse -
Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 30(5)
T Mahendranathan v. KCH Holdings Sdn Bhd
(Chew Soo Ho) [2009] 3 ILR 313
Remedies - Compensation - Claimant on a fixed term contract - 42 months left on the contract -
Whether amount of backwages should be limited to 24 months - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether dismissal without
just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 30(5)
T Mahendranathan v. KCH Holdings Sdn Bhd
(Chew Soo Ho) [2009] 3 ILR 313
Remedies - Compensation - Payment to Messrs TMN Management Consultants - Whether claimant had
been entitled to it contractually - Terms of the claimant’s contract of employment - Effect of - Whether dismissal
without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 30(5)
T Mahendranathan v. KCH Holdings Sdn Bhd
(Chew Soo Ho) [2009] 3 ILR 313
PUBLIC SERVANTS
Dismissal - Dismissal of plaintiff nurse - Request for oral hearing denied - Committee of inquiry
not appointed despite peculiar facts of case - Whether plaintiff afforded a fair hearing - Whether disciplinary
authority committed procedural unfairness - Whether dismissal null and void - Federal Constitution, art. 135(2) - Public
Officers (Conduct and Discipline) (Chapter "D") General Orders 1980, GO 26
Asriyah Sairy v. Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Awam, Malaysia & Anor
(Kang Hwee Gee J) [2009] 3 ILR 225
NON-COMPLIANCE
Award - Consent award - Terms of the consent award - Whether had been ambiguous - Respondent failing
to pay the awarded sum to the complainant - Reasons advanced for the same - Effect of - Whether the respondent had been
seeking to unilaterally include terms into the consent award to avoid running foul of the law - Effect of - Whether
there had been non-compliance by the respondent - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 56(1) & Income Tax Act 1967, ss.
83(3) & 83(5)
Nermal Singh Amar Singh v. Federal Express Services (M) Sdn Bhd
(Amelia Tee Hong Geok Abdullah)
[2009] 3 ILR 437
Award - Consent award - Terms of the consent award - Respondent failing to comply - Respondent
awaiting tax clearance - Whether the respondent had been aware of obligations under the law when entering into consent
award - Whether it should be allowed - What the respondent should have done - Respondent failing to pay the awarded sum
to the complainant - Effect of - Whether there had been
non-compliance by the respondent - Industrial Relations Act 1967,
s. 56(1) & Income Tax Act 1967 ss. 83(3) & 83(5)
Nermal Singh Amar Singh v. Federal Express Services (M) Sdn Bhd
(Amelia Tee Hong Geok Abdullah)
[2009] 3 ILR 437
Award - Consent award - Respondent failing to comply - Whether consent award could be varied -
Whether proper application before the court - Whether special circumstances shown - Effect of - Whether there had been
non-compliance by the respondent - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 56(1) & Income Tax Act 1967, ss. 83(3) & 83(5)
Nermal Singh Amar Singh v. Federal Express Services (M) Sdn Bhd
(Amelia Tee Hong Geok Abdullah)
[2009] 3 ILR 437
Award - Respondent wound-up - Effect of - Liquidators appointed to look after respondent’s
interests - Liquidators not party to the proceedings - Effect of - Courses of action open to the complainant - Effect of
filing a non-compliance action - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 56(1) & 56(4)
Heng Kiah Woo v. Consolidated Farms Berhad
(Franklin Goonting) [2009] 3 ILR 237
Collective Agreement - Article on existing benefits - Whether lump sum payments came under the
ambit of existing benefits - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether lump sum payments had been performance based -
Whether it had been the prerogative of the company to give - Whether the lump sum payments had been annual increments -
Effect of - Conduct of the union in negotiating the Collective Agreement - Whether the company had breached the article
on existing benefits in the Collective Agreement - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 56
Kesatuan Pekerja-pekerja Felda Plantations Sdn Bhd v. Felda Plantations Sdn Bhd
(Chew Soo Ho) [2009] 3 ILR 294
Collective Agreement - Article on retirement benefits - Intention of - Claimant seconded to
subsidiary of koperasi and later re-absorbed back into the koperasi - Whether there had been a break in his employment -
Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether he had been entitled to retirement benefits - Whether the koperasi had
breached the article on retirement benefits in the Collective Agreement - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s.
56
Kesatuan Pekerja-pekerja Koperasi Polis Diraja Malaysia Berhad v. Koperasi Polis Diraja Malaysia Berhad
(Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh) [2009]
3 ILR 304
INDEKS PERKARA
PEMBUANGAN KERJA
Pekerja percubaan - Yang menuntut masih menjalani tempoh percubaan - Sama ada tindakan syarikat
tersebut menunjukkan niatnya untuk tidak lagi meneruskan dengan kontrak perkhidmatan YM - Sama ada dibuktikan oleh YM -
Kesannya - Sama ada YM telah meletak jawatan - Kesannya - Sama ada pembuangan kerja adalah tanpa alasan atau sebab yang
adil - Akta Mahkamah Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(3)
Ahmad Kamil Abu Hashim lwn. KGMMB Holdings Sdn Bhd
(Badariah Hassan) [2009] 3 ILR 367
Pemecatan secara konstruktif - Yang menuntut dihalang masuk ke pejabat - Sama ada YM sahaja
dihalang masuk ke pejabat - Jawatan YM - Tindakan yang diambil oleh YM - Kesannya - Sama ada tindakan syarikat merupakan
perlanggaran yang melibatkan asas kontrak antara mereka - Sama ada tindakan YM adalah pramatang - Kesannya - Apa yang
seharusnya dilakukan oleh YM - Sama ada pembuangan kerja adalah tanpa alasan atau sebab yang adil - Akta Mahkamah
Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(3)
Ahmad Kamil Abu Hashim lwn. KGMMB Holdings Sdn Bhd
(Badariah Hassan) [2009] 3 ILR 367
PENTAFSIRAN
Award - Yang menuntut diambil bekerja semula oleh syarikat dan dibayar pampasan - Pampasan YM tidak
merangkumi bonus dan kenaikan gaji - Sama ada YM berhak kepada bayaran-bayaran tersebut - Kesannya - Terma-terma Award -
Interpretasi Award tersebut - Sama ada bayaran bonus dan kenaikan gaji adalah atas budi bicara syarikat - Sama ada YM
dapat membuktikan bahawa beliau berhak mendapat bayaran-bayaran tersebut - Kesannya - Akta Mahkamah Perusahaan Act 1967,
ss. 30(4), 30(5) dan 33(1)
Suzana Zakaria lwn. Sistem Televisyen Malaysia Berhad
(Badariah Hassan) [2009] 3 ILR 378
CASE OF THE WEEK
AFIZAH YAAKOB v. COSMOPOINT SDN BHD
DISMISSAL: Insubordination - Company transferring the claimant - Whether the claimant's letter of employment had provided for her transfer - Terms and conditions of the claimant's service - Effect of - Reasons for the transfer - Whether the transfer had been bona fide and legal - Whether it had been to satisfy the company's business objectives - Claimant failing to obey transfer orders - Reasons for her refusal - Whether her reasons had constituted personal reasons - Effect of - Whether the company had succeeded in establishing insubordination - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
DISMISSAL: Insubordination - Company transferring the claimant - Claimant not consulted by company prior to her transfer - Whether the company had been under an obligation to consult her - Effect of - Transfer clause in claimant's letter of employment - Scope of the transfer clause - Effect of - Claimant claiming relocation would be difficult due to lack of support - Whether proven by the claimant - Effect of - Whether the company had succeeded in establishing insubordination - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
DISMISSAL: Insubordination - Company transferring the claimant - Claimant given 3 days notice informing her of her transfer - Whether it had constituted short notice to the claimant - Whether it had been to satisfy the company's business objectives - Whether the transfer although inconvenient had been legal - Reasons for the company giving her such short notice - Effect of - Claimant failing to obey transfer orders - Claimant not submitting any formal request to extend her transfer orders - What she should have done - Effect of - Whether the company had succeeded in establishing insubordination - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
DISMISSAL: Insubordination - Company transferring the claimant - Claimant failing to obey transfer orders - Claimant claiming that transfer allowance had been insufficient - Whether the transfer allowance had been contractual - Effect of - Whether her objection to it had been reasonable - Effect of - Whether the claimant had proven that by the transfer she would have suffered a loss of remuneration and benefits - Effect of - Whether the company had succeeded in establishing insubordination - 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 - 2009 CLJ Legal Network Sdn
Bhd (192353 V)
Email: enquiries@cljlaw.com Phone: 603-4270-5400 Fax No : 603-4270
5401 & 603-4270 5402