 |
||
|
||
LATEST CASES (ILR Issue 5 of 2026) |
||
|
SUBJECT INDEX CONTRACT Employment contract – Breaches – Claim for constructive dismissal –
Sexual harassment – Allegations of physical and verbal harassment – Failure
of employer to conduct formal investigation or inquiry – Employer proposed
employee work from home or after office hours to avoid harasser – Whether
unilateral alteration of employment terms – Whether employer breached
implied term of mutual trust and confidence – Whether employer failed to
provide safe and conducive working environment – Whether employer’s
conduct amounted to fundamental breach going to root of employment
contract – Whether there were breaches of employment contract Employment contract – Employment permit – Failure of expatriate worker
to secure fresh employment permit for employer – Absence of express clause
making employment conditional upon procurement of work permit –
Whether statutory mandatory requirement under Employment (Restriction)
Act 1968 implied into contract – Whether contract could be performed Employment contract – Frustration – Frustration of contract based on
medical grounds – Visual impairment – Employee registered as Orang
Kurang Upaya (OKU) – Condition pre-existing and known to company at
commencement of employment – Employee served for seven years without
workplace incident – Employee involved in isolated road accident –
Employee dismissed from employment due to frustration of employment
contract – Whether frustration can be invoked for known condition –
Whether performance of duties became impossible – Whether doctrine of
frustration applicable CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Sentence – Adequacy of sentence – Breach of workplace safety duties – Fatal
forklift accident involving employee – Failure by employer to conduct risk
assessment and establish safe operating procedures for forklift operations –
Whether sentence adequate – Whether employer entitled to leniency with
respect to sentence for plea of guilty at earliest opportunity – Whether
s. 15(1) of Occupational Safety and Health Act 1994 imposed positive
statutory duty on employer to identify and control workplace risks before
harm occurred – Occupational Safety and Health Act 1994, ss. 15(1) & 19 EVIDENCE Medical evidence – Medical assessment – Veracity and authenticity –
Occupational health doctor certified employee as ‘unfit for work’ – Whether
qualified ophthalmologist – Assessment based on information provided by
company without physical examination of employee – Weight to be attached
to evidence LABOUR LAW Domestic inquiry – Recommendation of panel – Punishment – Employer
escalating punishment from demotion to dismissal against domestic inquiry
panel’s recommendation – Whether final deciding authority’s power
unfettered – Whether reasons given for preferring view over domestic
inquiry panel’s recommendation – Whether disagreement justified by gravity
and seriousness of proven misconduct – Whether decision-maker reviewed
complete record of domestic inquiry proceedings – Whether management
committed any error when differing from domestic inquiry panel’s
recommendation Employment – Contract of employment – Employment permit – Failure of
expatriate worker to secure fresh employment permit for employer –
Validity and enforceability of contract – Absence of express clause making
employment conditional upon procurement of work permit – Whether
statutory mandatory requirement under Employment (Restriction) Act 1968
implied into contract – Whether employment contract could be performed
– Whether there was valid employment relationship – Whether there was
constructive dismissal Employment – Dismissal – Constructive dismissal – Sexual harassment –
Allegations of physical and verbal harassment – Failure of employer to
conduct formal investigation or inquiry – Employer proposed employee
work from home or after office hours to avoid harasser – Whether unilateral
alteration of employment terms – Whether employer breached implied term
of mutual trust and confidence – Whether employer failed to provide safe
and conducive working environment – Whether claimant successfully
proved constructive dismissal – Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Teng Mee Cheng v. Cempakaraya Sdn Bhd Employment – Dismissal – Forced resignation – Mutual employment
separation agreement (‘MESA’) – Employee called into meeting and directed
to sign MESA within less than one hour – No prior notice or discussion –
Employer alleged redundancy due to future restructuring plan – Whether
employee signed MESA voluntarily – Whether there was forced resignation
– Whether employer acted in good faith – Whether dismissal with just cause
or excuse – Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3) Employment – Dismissal – Frustration of contract based on medical grounds
– Visual impairment – Employee registered as Orang Kurang Upaya (OKU)
– Condition pre-existing and known to company at commencement of
employment – Employee served for seven years without workplace incident
– Employee involved in isolated road accident – Employee dismissed from
employment due to frustration of employment contract – Whether condition
rendered employment contract impossible to perform – Whether there was
supervening event – Whether termination disproportionate response –
Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3) Employment – Dismissal – Insubordination – Employee’s duty to comply
with directives and instructions of employer – Refusal to obey lawful and
reasonable instructions – Employee defying instructions and questioning
employer’s authority – Whether willful disobedience of lawful orders
justified dismissal – Whether failure to comply amounted to persistent
insubordination – Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3) Employment – Dismissal – Misconduct – Allegations of failure to update
stock cards – Absence of formal job scope revision or training – Whether
stock card duties specifically assigned to employee – Whether misconduct
proven – Whether dismissal with just cause or excuse – Industrial Relations
Act 1967, s. 20(3) Employment – Dismissal – Misconduct – Condonation – Allegations of
habitual lateness – Employer’s knowledge of claimant’s attendance patterns
for substantial period of time – Failure to take disciplinary action despite
knowledge – Whether employer’s inaction amounted to condonation –
Whether alleged misconduct could be subsequently used as basis for
dismissal – Whether dismissal with just cause or excuse – Industrial
Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3) Employment – Dismissal – Misconduct – Insubordination – Employee
experienced massive increase in workload and understaffed department –
Allegations of persistent wilful defiance of superior’s instructions and failure
to attend meetings and meet deadlines – Employee summarily dismissed
from employment – Whether employee’s conduct amounted to intentional
disobedience – Whether there was objective impossibility – Whether there
was insubordination – Whether dismissal with just cause or excuse –
Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) Employment – Dismissal – Misconduct – Nine charges involving irregular
appointment of consolidator and failure to safeguard company’s financial
interests – Domestic inquiry panel found claimant guilty but recommended
punishment short of dismissal – Executive Chairman disagreed and
recommended dismissal due to seriousness of misconduct – Whether
employer bound by lenient recommendations of domestic inquiry panel –
Whether procedural fairness mandated fresh inquiry or right of reply upon
escalation of punishment – Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3) Employment – Dismissal – Termination on grounds of misconduct and
insubordination – Claimant clocking out early from work without approval
– Failure to reply to show cause letters in writing within stipulated time –
Refusal to sign and accept show cause letters – Whether amounted to serious
misconduct and insubordination – Whether employer required to prove
every charge of misconduct to justify dismissal – Whether single established
charge of sufficient gravity constitutes just cause and excuse for termination
– Whether dismissal with just cause and excuse – Industrial Relations Act 1967 Employment – Terms and conditions – Right to disconnect – After-hours
communication – Superior sent instructions and reminders via email to
subordinate outside ordinary working hours – Whether there was genuine
operational emergency – Whether employees expected to remain perpetually
responsive outside working hours absent necessity Industrial Court – Remedies – Reinstatement – Employee with 26 years of
service and nearing retirement age – Whether reinstatement most appropriate
and equitable remedy – Consideration of practical realities in securing new
employment – Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5) Employment – Retrenchment – Redundancy – Mutual employment
separation agreement (‘MESA’) – Employee called into meeting and directed
to sign MESA within less than one hour – No prior notice or discussion –
Employer alleged redundancy due to future restructuring plan – Whether
there was genuine need for re-organisation – Whether there was proof of
restructuring or redundancy – Whether redundancy genuine – Whether
deceptive scheme to cause employee’s exit – Whether retrenchment exercise
bona fide – Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3) |
||
|
