Source: http://labourlawbox.com/bulletin/labourlaw_bulletin_02_19.html
Timestamp: 2019-03-19 22:52:24
Document Index: 381610339

Matched Legal Cases: ['CASE NO: 27', 'CASE NO: 32', 'Case No: 24', 'Case No: 26', 'Case No: 27', 'Case No: 12', 'Case No: 32', 'Case No: 17', 'Case No: 17', 'Case No: 30', 'Case No: 29', 'Case No: 23', 'Case No: 25', 'Case No: 23', 'Case No: 23', 'Case No: 26', 'Case No: 29']

IN THIS ISSUE BULLETIN 02/2019
- ILR Issue 01 of 2019
K INDHIRA RAJA KALANDASAMY v. KHAS CERGAS SDN BHD
AWARD NO. 2761 OF 2018 [CASE NO: 27(21)/4-1380/17]
DISMISSAL: Misconduct – Whether the claimant had applied, as a college and university, to the Ministry for a Training Visa, thus breaching the fundamental terms of confidentiality and fiduciary duties he had owed the company as the CEO – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether the company had succeeded in establishing the misconduct against him – Claimant’s defence – Whether acceptable – Whether dismissal with just cause and excuse
DISMISSAL: Misconduct – Whether the claimant had applied to the Ministry for approval of an Ex-Pat Employment Pass, vide another company, using the company’s information as his own – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether the company had succeeded in establishing the misconduct against him – Claimant’s defence – Whether acceptable – Whether dismissal with just cause and excuse
DISMISSAL: Misconduct – Whether the claimant had set up another company which had had the same business operations and address as the company – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Evaluation of – Effect of – Whether the company had succeeded in establishing the misconduct against him – Claimant’s defence – Whether could be accepted – Whether the company’s conduct towards him had shown mala fide intent – Factors to consider – Effect of – Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse
EVIDENCE: Adverse inference – Whether the company’s failure to call Dr. Sayyid Shah had raised an adverse inference against it – Factors to consider – Effect of – Evidence Act 1950, s. 114(g)
EVIDENCE: Documentary evidence – Police reports and SDs submitted by the company – Whether these documents had been within the contemplation of the company when the claimant had been terminated – Evidence adduced – Effect of – Whether these documents had raised concerns and had a nexus to the claimant’s case – Whether it had been an attempt by the company to bolster its case against him
EVIDENCE: Documentary evidence – Whether the company’s actions of adducing fresh evidence after the conclusion of the hearing should be allowed – Factors to consider – Whether the prejudicial effect of such evidence had outweighed its probative value
INDUSTRIAL COURT: Procedure – Action – Claimant and company executing a Deed of Settlement pursuant to a civil claim in the Civil Court – Whether it had precluded the claimant from bringing this action against the company – Factors to consider – Evidence adduced – Effect of
ATHANASIUS ALLAPAN ANTHONG v. MYTEKSI SDN BHD
AWARD NO. 2857 OF 2018 [CASE NO: 32(22)/4-1471/17]
INDUSTRIAL COURT: Procedure – Action – Whether the IC ought to award costs – Factors to consider – Effect of – Actions of the claimant’s counsel – Whether personal costs ought to be made against her – Industrial Relations Regulations 1967, reg. 5
LATEST CASES (ILR Issue 01 of 2019)
2407/2018 Lam Kor Sin v. Globalgroup Asia Pacific Sdn Bhd & Anor
[Case No: 24(7)/4-704/17] [2019] 1 ILR 1
2444/2018 Thamotharan Ramasanderan v. UMW Toyota Motor Sdn Bhd
[Case No: 26(4)/4 -174/17] [2019] 1 ILR 7
2761/2018 K Indhira Raja Kalandasamy v. Khas Cergas Sdn Bhd
[Case No: 27(21)/4-1380/17] [2019] 1 ILR 23
2849/2018 Tan Tian Hock v. Timberion Sdn Bhd
[Case No: 12(4)/4-380/15] [2019] 1 ILR 43
2857/2018 Athanasius Allapan Anthong v. MyTeksi Sdn Bhd
[Case No: 32(22)/4-1471/17] [2019] 1 ILR 66
2910/2018 Tan Choon Moi v. Sapatanian Sdn Bhd
[Case No: 17/4-1083/16] [2019] 1 ILR 71
2931/2018 Lamjin Atoh v. Sabah Learning Centre, Open University Malaysia (OUM)
[Case No: 17/4-889/17] [2019] 1 ILR 84
2989/2018 Naga Eshwary Nadarajah v. AIG Shared Services (M) Sdn Bhd
[Case No: 30(2)/4-30/17] [2019] 1 ILR 99
3001/2018 Nurul Najmi Radzuan & Ors v. T-Systems Malaysia Sdn Bhd
[Case No: 29(19)/4-1783/16], Consolidated With Cases Nos: 19/4-1784/16, 19/4-1785/16, 19/4-1786/16, 19/4-1787/16, 19/4-1788/16, 19/4-1789/16, 19/4-1791/16, 19/4-1792, 19/4-1793] [2019] 1 ILR 108
3005/2018 Victor Asir Jatham Juvakin v. United Sanoh Industries Sdn Bhd
[Case No: 23(13)/4-916/16] [2019] 1 ILR 148
3080/2018 Persatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-Pekerja Bank v. Standard Chartered Bank Malaysia Berhad
[Case No: 25(22)/3-1693/16] [2019] 1 ILR 158
3099/2018 Lynette Suppiah v. Malaysia Mega Galvaniser Sdn Bhd
[Case No: 23(21)/4-1569/17] [2019] 1 ILR 187
3115/2018 Abdul Azis Isa v. Yeo Hiap Seng (Malaysia) Berhad
[Case No: 23(6)/4-1005/18] [2019] 1 ILR 193
3143/2018 Syed Naharudin Syed Hashim v. Etiqa Takaful Berhad
[Case No: 26(12)/4-582/17] [2019] 1 ILR 198
3210/2018 Gursharan Kaur Gurdav Singh v. Momentum Wellness Sdn Bhd
[Case No: 29(4)/4-542/18] [2019] 1 ILR 219
MCDONALD’S WORKER WINS COMPENSATION AFTER BREAKING HER LEG ON SMOKO
Former McDonald's worker entitled to compensation; case set to have huge ramifications
A McDonald’s worker who was left with a broken leg after falling from a ladder she’d used to climb for a quick pre-shift smoke break will receive a payout from the fast food restaurant. Mandep Sarkaria was working at a Brisbane McDonald’s in November 2016 when she arrived 10 minutes early for her shift at the Richlands fast food outlet.
Vineyard contracting company and boss fined more than NZ$120k for exploiting workers
A vineyard contracting company has been fined $127,500 for falsifying and failing to keep wage and leave records for 199 migrant workers. Marlborough vineyard contracting company Double Seven Services and its owner have been collectively penalised by the Employment Relations Authority. Double Seven Services was fined by the ERA $85,000 and its sole shareholder, Qin Zhang, was penalised $42,500 for 59 breaches of minimum employment standards.