employee

Malaysia passes Anti-Sexual Harassment Bill with very minor amendments, despite widespread criticism

Marcus van Geyzel1 Comment

Malaysia’s Dewan Rakyat (House of Representatives) has passed the Anti-Sexual Harassment Bill 2021, despite unaddressed concerns of significant shortcomings in the Bill.

The Bill was initially tabled for its first reading in December 2021 (Read our previous post: “Malaysia’s Anti-Sexual Harassment Bill tabled in Parliament”). It was then withdrawn from a second reading earlier in 2022, with the government indicating that it would be significantly reviewed following robust feedback received from various parties. Unfortunately, the Bill which was passed this week only had very minor amendments from the first draft.

Due to the limited revisions made from the first draft, our summary of the Bill published in December 2021 is still mostly accurate: https://themalaysianlawyer.com/2021/12/15/anti-sexual-harassment-bill/

These are the material changes in the updated version of the Bill:

  1. A new Clause 7(3) is included, introducing a limitation period for sexual harassment complaints: “A complaint referred to the Tribunal under this Act is subject to the Limitation Act 1953.”
  2. While the original version provided that parties at the hearing of a sexual harassment complaint cannot be represented by an advocate and solicitor, this has been revised [at Clause 13(2)] to provide that legal representation will be allowed if “in the opinion of the Tribunal, the matter in question involves complex issues of law”. The revisions also provide that if one party is allowed to represented by an advocate and solicitor, then the other party will also be so entitled.

With these very limited changes, it appears that the concerns raised by numerous rights organisations who had hoped for “a meticulous review of the Bill” have been left unheard. Time will tell whether the new long-awaited law will be comprehensive enough to protect the rights and wellbeing of sexual harassment victims.

Confirmed: New Minimum Wages Order effective 1 May 2022; employers with less than 5 employees exempted

Marcus van Geyzel2 Comments

The widely-anticipated Minimum Wages Order 2022 (“the Order”) was gazetted on 27 April 2022. The Order, pursuant to section 23 of the National Wages Consultative Council Act 2011, increases the minimum wage nationwide to RM1,500 from 1 May 2022. There is a temporary exemption until 31 December 2022 from the increase for employers with less than five employees.

Further details of the Order are set out below.

Continue reading →

Summary of new SOPs and guidelines for Malaysian workplaces from 1 April 2022

Marcus van Geyzel2 Comments

Malaysia today begins its “Transition to Endemic” phase for COVID-19. As mentioned in an earlier update (Malaysia’s updated workplace COVID SOPs from 1 April 2022: Capacity and operating hour limits abolished), there will be only one Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) applicable nationwide for this new phase.

The National Security Council (NSC/MKN) has today released the new SOP and the following guidelines (all available at mysop.gov.my:

  1. Guidelines for indoor work spaces.
  2. Guidelines for outdoor work areas.
  3. Guidelines for religious activities, weddings, and funerals.
  4. Guidelines for hotel and guest accommodations.
  5. Guidelines for events, gatherings, entertainment, and tourist attractions.
  6. Guidelines for sports, recreational, and leisure activities and facilities.
  7. Guidelines for education and childcare.
  8. Guidelines for retail activities, food and beverage.
  9. Guidelines for transport and movement.

SOPs are enforced safety measures, with non-compliance punishable by fines. Meanwhile, the Guidelines serve to illustrate and expand on the requirements in the SOP, and compliance is only encouraged.

This article summarises some of the relevant SOPs and recommended best practices for workplaces generally from 1 April 2022. Business owners/operators and employers should still refer to the SOP document and any applicable guidelines for a comprehensive understanding of the requirements.

Continue reading →

Case Update: Justifying a retrenchment and departure from LIFO

Marcus van GeyzelLeave a comment

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.

Malaysian courts recognise an employer’s right to organise his business in the way he thinks is best, provided that this right is exercised in good faith. The law gives an employer the right to decide on the number of employees his business employs based on business needs and efficiency. When it comes to retrenchments, the courts will be slow to intervene with an employer’s decision to retrench employees, unless there is evidence that the employer acted without proper reason, or otherwise acted in bad faith.

Employees who have been retrenched commonly challenge the legality of the termination on two points: (1) There was no genuine redundancy or other reason to carry out a retrenchment exercise. (2) Where there was a genuine need for a retrenchment, the selection criteria used by the employer in deciding which employees to dismiss was unfair.

Therefore, even though employers generally have the right to decide on their workforce numbers, any decision to retrench employees must be carefully considered and implemented. The recent Industrial Court award in Wong CP & 3 Others v. Taylor’s University Sdn Bhd (Award No. 342 of 2022) is worth considering as a reminder of the issues the Industrial Court will take into consideration where employees challenge the fairness of a retrenchment.

Continue reading →

Case Update: A guide to how the Industrial Court assesses sexual harassment complaints

Marcus van GeyzelLeave a comment

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.

Sexual harassment in the workplace is a topic that has recently attracted a lot of attention and discussion. While most Malaysian employers have been relatively slow to respond, we have seen an increased focus in the past year from businesses and employers seeking to understand the often complex issues relating to workplace sexual harassment. There continues to be a noticeable increase in momentum of employers putting in place anti-harassment policies and processes, learning how to handle sexual harassment complaints, and ensuring that employees attend external and internal education and training sessions.

As I pointed out in my 2022 employment law forecast (See: “Employment law: 2021 review and 2022 forecast”), this focus on addressing workplace sexual harassment is expected to intensify in 2022, particularly with the increasing public discourse, and in view of Malaysia’s first specific sexual harassment legislation expected to be passed in the first half of the year (See: “Malaysia’s Anti-Sexual Harassment Bill tabled in Parliament”). In November 2021, the government shared that 775 sexual harassment cases had been reported and investigated by police — it’s clear that this is only the tip of the iceberg, and we will see more cases surfacing as awareness and education continues.

While the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act and the “Tribunal for Anti-Sexual Harassment” will provide a new specific avenue for sexual harassment complaints, in the context of the workplace, there has already been some recourse for employee-victims, and scope for employers to take action. Sexual harassment is a workplace misconduct punishable by termination, and victims of sexual harassment who can show that an employer had not properly handled a complaint could potentially claim to have been constructively dismissed (See: “Case Update: Employer’s poor handling of workplace assault and harassment complaints amounts to constructive dismissal” for one example). Of course, as already mentioned, as there has only recently been proper awareness and education in relation to workplace sexual harassment, over the years too many employee-victims have suffered in silence.

With the increase in sexual harassment complaints in recent years, the Industrial Court has had the opportunity to refine and clarify its approach in handling such cases. Sexual harassment can be very complex, as there are many types of sexual harassment. Evidence can also be controversial, as many instances of sexual harassment take place in private, without witnesses. To review the current position of the Industrial Court when it comes to adjudicating sexual harassment complaints, we will look at the recent case of AH v. Cagamas Berhad [2021] 4 ILR 284. This case update will cover the following topics:

  1. How the law defines sexual harassment.
  2. The burden of proof in sexual harassment misconduct.
  3. Are witnesses or corroboration necessary for sexual harassment cases?
  4. Does a delay in making a sexual harassment complaint render the claim invalid?
  5. Is “it was just a joke” a valid defence?
  6. Examples of what constitutes sexual harassment.

Continue reading →

Case Update: Federal Court rules that an employer cannot use reasons discovered post-dismissal to justify an employee dismissal

Marcus van GeyzelLeave a comment

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 not uncommon, in instances where an employee has been dismissed, for new facts or circumstances to be discovered post-termination which are then treated as “justifying” the dismissal in the eyes of the employer.

For example, where an employee has been dismissed for poor performance, the employee or employees who then take on the dismissed employee’s responsibilities may discover a trail of errors or negligence that ran deeper than was known at the point of termination. In other cases, the employee may have been dismissed for one reason, but the employer later uncovers evidence of other misbehaviour or misconduct which the employer then takes as further proof that the dismissal was “the right decision”.

While these post-dismissal discoveries may make an employer rest more easily, convinced that dismissal was the correct option, what would happen if the employee brings an unfair dismissal claim? Would an employer who dismissed an employee because of Reason A be then able to justify the dismissal by later saying that, after the termination, they also discovered Reason X, Y, and Z, and that therefore even if Reason A was weak and insufficient to justify termination, the court should also consider Reasons X, Y, and Z?

This was the issue that went all the way to the Federal Court recently, in Maritime Intelligence Sdn Bhd v Tan Ah Gek [2021] 4 ILR 417.

Continue reading →