employment termination

Court of Appeal: Abuse of process for an employee to claim compensation for wrongful dismissal via the civil courts instead of the Industrial Court

Marcus van Geyzel1 Comment

There has always been an unresolved question of whether a dismissed employee could bring a civil claim against his or her former employer, instead of or even in addition to a wrongful dismissal claim at the Industrial Court.

The courts have never previously expressly ruled out the possibility of such claims — theoretically this could be a claim for damages, breach of contract, or loss of potential earnings — and the threat of such claims have also sometimes been used by high-ranking or C-suite employees as a bargaining chip when negotiating lucrative severance packages.

More confusion arose as a result several High Court decisions, and the 2020 Court of Appeal decision in Ng Kim Fong v Menang Corporation (M) Berhad [2020] MLJU 644, where the court granted the employee damages for breach of contract in the form of payment of her contractual retirement benefits.

However, the recent Court of Appeal decision in 7-Eleven Malaysia Sdn Bhd v AH Krishnan [Civil Appeal No. W-02(IM)(NCVC)-629-04/2022] has finally provided much-needed clarity on this situation. In short, the Court of Appeal ruled that a wrongful dismissal (loss of employment) claim should be brought via the Industrial Court, and that a civil suit where the employee seeks monetary compensation via a common law action ought to be struck out as being an abuse of process of the court.

Continue reading →

Case Update: Dismissal of employee arrested by Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) deemed unfair

Marcus van Geyzel1 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.

Employers are frequently caught off-guard when they have to respond to a sudden development that threatens to damage their corporate image or reputation. These days, a common example would be where an incident involving an employee goes viral on social media, in a negative way.

Although social media virality does spread a lot faster than traditional media, the legal issues are not new. I have advised employer-clients many times over the years on the proper process to follow when employees are the subject of negative media coverage, including instances where employees have been arrested.

Despite the urgency and sensationalism that comes with an employer being named in media reports, employers have to be clear-headed in responding to such situations (See: “Handing employee dismissals properly under Malaysian law”), as an over-reaction can have expensive consequences.

This was illustrated in the recent Industrial Court award in Abas Tuah v Malaysia Airports Holdings Bhd (Award No. 1749 of 2022).

Continue reading →

Can employers insist that employees working remotely return to the office?

Marcus van Geyzel1 Comment

One of the biggest changes to career and workplace culture as a result of the pandemic has been remote working. While the concept of remote working and the even more extreme “digital nomad” lifestyle is not new, there is no doubt that the pandemic and resultant lockdowns greatly accelerated the adoption of remote working, particularly in the more traditional industries and professions.

We have previously featured the views of employees on how remote working has changed the way their work (“Lessons from Lockdown: How COVID-19 and remote working have changed the way we work”), and also published insights from young lawyers on the legal industry’s experience with remote working (“COVID, MCO, and the Malaysian legal industry — Part 1: Money (paycuts, revenue), remote working, and technology”).

Employers now want employees back in the office

However, in the second half of 2022, this trend reversed. Employers who in 2020-21 seemed to have been convinced of the viability of allowing employees to work remotely or flexibly began to introduce policies mandating that employees needed to be in the office for a specified number of days each week.

In many industries, employees have been reluctant to return fulltime to the office, and compliance with these new directives has been mixed — it is common for employers to report that a “three days per week in the office” policy sees employees turning up for only two days each week.

It has been in the news in the past week that Apple are threatening disciplinary action against employees who fail to come into the office three days a week. Apple are reportedly tracking employee in-office attendance and will give employees escalating warnings, which could result in termination.

Many multinational businesses are similarly seeking to enforce these new directives more strictly in the different jurisdictions they operate in, and are finding that doing so can be legally complicated.

Continue reading →

Case Update: Employee dismissed after sexual harassment complaint deemed unfairly dismissed due to improper process

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 employers are still coming to terms with how to properly handle sexual harassment complaints. While many employers have been introducing anti-harassment policies and processes, and organising awareness and training sessions for employees, mistakes are still often being made in responding to complaints of workplace sexual harassment.

In a previous Case Update, I wrote about a case which illustrated how a mismanaged harassment complaint could expose an employer to a constructive dismissal claim (“Case Update: Employer’s poor handling of workplace assault and harassment complaints amounts to constructive dismissal”). I have also previously shared an Industrial Court case which serves as a useful overview for how the court views workplace sexual harassment (“Case Update: A guide to how the Industrial Court assesses sexual harassment complaints”).

This Case Update reviews the Industrial Court award in Lim Po Seng v Resort Villa Golf Course Berhad (Award No. 471 of 2023), where the court decided that an employee who was dismissed pursuant to a sexual harassment complaint was unfairly dismissed.

Continue reading →

Newly Updated: “Guide to Malaysian Employment Law”

Marcus van Geyzel1 Comment

We have just updated our very popular Guide to Malaysian Employment Law. These updates take into account the significant changes to the Employment Act as a result of the Employment (Amendment) Act 2022 and Employment (Amendment of First Schedule) Order 2022 which came into force on 1 January 2023.

Since the Guide was launched in October 2021 (See: “Just launched: ‘Guide to Malaysian Employment Law'”) it has attracted a constant stream of readers, still averaging in the high thousands of unique views every month.

As mentioned when the Guide was launched, the topics in the Guide have been selected based on feedback from in-house counsel and HR professionals, and cover the usual high-level background legal information they would like to have on-hand, particularly as professionals from other jurisdictions considering employment issues in Malaysia. The feedback we have received on the Guide has been overwhelmingly positive, and we believe it is a unique resource.

We hope the updated Guide will continue to prove useful to all readers. (Guide to Malaysian Employment Law)

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 →