Case Update: High Court rules entitlement to back wages limited to unexpired duration of fixed-term contract

Marcus van GeyzelLeave a comment

Case Updates - red

In this Case Update series, I share summaries of recent Malaysian court decisions to explore the current approach taken by the courts when deciding on employment-related issues. You can find all the posts in the series by clicking here, including case updates on other legal areas by TheMalaysianLawyer co-founder Lee Shih.

The issue of calculating back wages due to an unfairly dismissed employee has become fairly settled, at least when it comes to the upper limit of the award. The Second Schedule of the Industrial Relations Act states:

1. In the event that backwages are to be given, such backwages shall not exceed 24 months’ backwages from the date of dismissal based on the last-drawn salary of the person who has been dismissed without just cause or excuse.

However, the recent High Court case of Malayan Banking Bhd v. Mahkamah Perusahaan Malaysia & Anor [2017] 2 CLJ 70 considered a unique scenario, where the employee was dismissed while under a probationary period as part of a fixed-term contract. The Second Schedule of the Industrial Relations Act provides the following in respect of probationers:

2. In the case of a probationer who has been dismissed without just cause or excuse, any backwages given shall not exceed 12 months’ backwages from the date of dismissal based on his last-drawn salary.

The applicant (the Employer) applied to the High Court for an order to quash the decision of the first respondent (the Industrial Court). One of the issues that the High Court had to consider in this case (which is the issue we will focus on in this case update) was whether the second respondent (the Employee) should only have been entitled to back wages for the unexpired portion of her fixed-term contract (which was 5 months and 17 days), and not the 12-month maximum provided in the Industrial Relations Act for probationers.

Continue reading →

Case Update: Factors considered when determining whether a resignation is forced or voluntary

Marcus van GeyzelLeave a comment

Case Updates (FB)

In this Case Update series, I share summaries of recent Malaysian court decisions to explore the current approach taken by the courts when deciding on employment-related issues. You can find all the posts in the series by clicking here, including case updates on other legal areas by TheMalaysianLawyer co-founder Lee Shih.

It is common for employers to opt to negotiate a mutual separation or voluntary resignation when handling a potential dismissal. This could arise where there is a misconduct, unsatisfactory performance, or possible redundancy. Many employers take the view that is better for both parties to sit down and agree on the separation instead of the employer unilaterally exercising its rights under the law and risking a dissatisfied employee bringing an unfair dismissal claim.

However, what happens where an employee resigns following discussions with the employer, and later claims that this resignation was forced, or obtained under duress or pressure from the employer, and therefore that he was in fact unfairly dismissed?

Continue reading →

MAICSA Annual Conference 2017: Three Questions Raised

Lee ShihLeave a comment

On 12 September 2017, I was invited to be a speaker at the MAICSA Annual Conference 2017. This was on the Plenary Session 2 on Companies Act 2016 – Key Insights and Implications for Directors/Shareholders. It was moderated by my co-author and chartered secretary, Kenneth Foo.

Having delivered my presentation, there were interesting questions from the floor as well as through my interactions with the audience members. I thought it would be useful to highlight 3 of the questions I received. They are an indication of the issues still concerning practitioners and companies . Continue reading →

Case Update: Can an employee be dismissed for misconduct off-the-job and outside office hours?

Marcus van GeyzelLeave a comment

Case Updates (FB)

In this Case Update series, I share summaries of recent Malaysian court decisions to explore the current approach taken by the courts when deciding on employment-related issues. You can find all the posts in the series by clicking here, including case updates on other legal areas by TheMalaysianLawyer co-founder Lee Shih.

The general position in Malaysian employment law is that the conduct of employees outside of the office and in their personal time is not relevant to the employment relationship. However, out-of-office misconduct may in some circumstances be serious enough to justify an employer taking disciplinary action against the employee, including dismissal.

The Industrial Court recently considered this issue in Sebastian Matthias Boehme v. Siemens Malaysia Sdn Bhd (Award No. 667 of 2017). Siemens, the Employer, terminated the Employee’s services following complaints received regarding the Employee’s behaviour at a hotel bar outside of office hours.

Continue reading →

DLA Piper’s updated Guide to Going Global series — Malaysia content

Marcus van GeyzelLeave a comment

DLA guide 2017 landscape.png

I’m delighted to share that the DLA Piper Guide to Going Global series has recently been updated.

This series includes the Employment practice area, and I provided the Malaysia content for this section.

The Employment guide has information on 56 jurisdictions. DLA Piper is one of the largest law firms in the world, but does not have a Malaysia office, and I am the sole Malaysian contributor in the series.

Continue reading →

Case Update: Malaysia’s Court of Appeal Confirms Power to Set Aside a Winding Up Order

Lee Shih3 Comments

In the Court of Appeal’s grounds of judgment dated 10 August 2017 of Gan Bee San v Malayan Banking Berhad, the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal and set aside a winding up order. The decision confirms the growing list of appellate authorities where the Court has the inherent jurisdiction to set aside a winding up order. The brief facts are below.

Continue reading →