case update

Case Update: When an employee transfer can amount to a constructive dismissal

Marcus van Geyzel7 Comments

Case Updates - yellow

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 a well-established principle in employment and industrial relations law in Malaysia that the right to transfer an employee is a prerogative of the management which the Industrial Court would rarely interfere with. However, there are factors which may affect an employer’s ability to transfer an employee without consent, including the following:

  • Whether the transfer is between different roles or departments within the same location, or from one branch or location to another, or between different companies within the same Group.
  • Whether the transfer is brought about by bona fide or genuine business reasons.
  • In some cases, the practical effect of the transfer may also be relevant (eg the impact of a change in work location or job functions).

In short, employee transfers are not always straightforward. Transferring an employee without consent may result in a breach of contract or constructive dismissal.

The Industrial Court considered these issues in Ng Bee Yoong v. Capital Development Sdn Bhd (Award No. 186 of 2016).

Continue reading →

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 →

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 →

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 →

Case Update: Federal Court Rules on Seat of Arbitration and the Law of the Arbitration Agreement

Lee ShihLeave a comment

The Federal Court in its grounds of judgment dated 17 August 2017 has ruled on the Thai-Lao Lignite v Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic appeal.

The Question of Law and the Determination

There was one critical question of law that was answered by the Federal Court:

Where the governing law of the contract is foreign law and the seat of arbitration [seat] is Malaysia, does the parties’ stipulation of Malaysia as the seat constitute an express agreement that the law governing the arbitration agreement is Malaysian law?

In answer to this question, the Federal Court answered as follows. Continue reading →