employment

Case Update: Potential pitfalls where an employee is engaged by a Malaysian service provider for a foreign employer

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.

Technology has facilitated the increasingly global reach of many businesses, and now even small businesses find it easy to establish a multi-jurisdictional presence. This global footprint, plus the increasing popularity of remote-working arrangements which has been further accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic has made it even more common for employers to hire employees in countries where they do not have a physical presence or legal entity.

Foreign companies use several options to engage individuals in Malaysia, broadly falling under the direct or indirect methods (or a combination). With the direct method, a foreign company would engage an individual directly, either as an employee or a contractor, using a contract either — (a) governed by Malaysian law; or (b) governed by the laws of the company’s home jurisdiction.

The indirect method is commonly known as “business process outsourcing” or “professional employer services” but also goes by many other names, and there are various interchangeable terminologies used. Essentially, this is a “third party employment” arrangement, whereby a foreign employer would engage a “local host employer” as a service provider, and this service provider would then engage the employees directly to perform services for the foreign employer. These local “professional employer organisations” would be responsible for arranging the payroll and statutory contributions and deductions for these “leased employees”, and would be the official “employer of record”. Using a local entity is unavoidable where the employee needs to apply for a work permit/visa.

I’ve advised employer clients on the engagement of employees using all of these options, and each of them have their respective advantages and disadvantages, and potential pitfalls for both employers and employees.

This article reviews the Industrial Court decision in Wong Wai Che vs. Quest BPO Sdn Bhd (Award No. 201 of 2021), involving an employee engaged by a foreign employer entity via a Malaysian service provider.

Continue reading →

Is it legal for Malaysian employers to make vaccinations mandatory for employees?

Marcus van GeyzelLeave a comment

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought up seemingly endless unique legal challenges for businesses and employers for the past 18 months, and counting. Beginning with lockdown and restrictions, remote working, paycuts, retrenchments and reorganisations, businesses in Malaysia and many other jurisdictions are now focusing on reopening, and hopefully moving into a post-pandemic future.

In recent weeks, we have been reading about the issue of mandating vaccines for employees. The legality of so-called “no jab no job” policies continues to be debated in major jurisdictions such as the UK, US, and Europe, where the reopening of the economy is at a more advanced stage than Malaysia, and where many companies have been implementing mandatory vaccination policies. Multinational companies with a Malaysian presence are now looking to roll out those policies in their Malaysian offices too. However, the law can be very different across jurisdictions, and employers will need to tread with caution and consider not just the legal but practical repercussions before making vaccinations mandatory for their employees.

In this article, I set out the legal position on this issue, and the key issues employers need to consider. I’ve also previously shared some of my views on this with The Malay Mail in their piece earlier this month — “Can Malaysian employers make Covid-19 vaccinations mandatory for their staff? Lawyers explain.”

Continue reading →

Case Update: Industrial Court finds retrenchment due to effects of COVID-19/MCO was unfair

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.

The Industrial Court recently decided that the retrenchment of an employee, which the employer said was due to the challenges caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, was an unfair dismissal. This decision shows that, while the courts will uphold genuine retrenchments as an option available to employers to ensure the financial viability and survival of their businesses, employers cannot simply cite the pandemic as an excuse to retrench employees without proper justification.

The award in Joseph Lim Chien Shiuh v. DTTLT Sdn Bhd (Award No. 1052 of 2021) dated 19 May 2021 should serve as a cautionary tale for employers. I expect we will see many more employees successfully challenging terminations carried out in 2020 and 2021 by businesses claiming to have been affected by the various lockdowns or Movement Control Orders (MCOs) and related restrictions.

Continue reading →

Case Update: Court of Appeal sets out key legal principles for retrenchments

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.

Retrenchment exercises have been a regular occurrence in the Malaysian industrial relations landscape for many years now. This looks set to continue deep into 2021, as employers respond to the challenges created by the on-going pandemic. Despite this prevalence, many employers often mishandle retrenchment exercises, with significant consequences.

The recent Court of Appeal (“the COA”) case of Ng Chang Seng v. Technip Geoproduction (M) Sdn Bhd & Anor [2021] 1 CLJ 365 usefully sets out some key legal and practical principles that all employers should consider when embarking on a retrenchment exercise. Among others, the judgment in the Ng Chang Seng case covered the following issues:

  1. What issues does the court consider when deciding whether the employer has proved a genuine redundancy?
  2. How can an employer justify not using Last-In First-Out (“LIFO”) for employee selection?
  3. Does an employer always have to retrench all foreign employees before retrenching Malaysian employees?
  4. Does the rehiring of some retrenched employees on a contract basis mean that there was no genuine redundancy?
  5. How much weight does the court give to non-compliance with the Code of Conduct for Industrial Harmony (“the Code of Conduct”)?

You can find all our previous posts on retrenchments by clicking on the tag here. Some of my earlier articles have been very popular and should prove useful:

  1. Retrenchments in Malaysia — some recent cases (29 May 2020).
  2. Case Update: Insufficient justification and improper handling of Voluntary Separation Scheme may give rise to unfair dismissal (20 March 2019).
  3. What you need to know about the law on retrenchment of employees (22 January 2016).

Continue reading →

Changes to the Industrial Relations Act from January 2021: Highlights and practical impact on employee exits

Marcus van GeyzelLeave a comment

Some important changes to Malaysia’s Industrial Relations Act came into force on 1 January 2021, pursuant to the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2020 (“the Amendment Act”). The changes heavily affect unfair dismissal claims — from the pre-trial conciliation process through to appealing an Industrial Court decision — and may significantly impact employee terminations.

Continue reading →

Case Update: Unfair dismissal due to poor handling of mutual separation agreement

Marcus van Geyzel2 Comments

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 COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in constant pressure on employers across almost all industries. There have been widespread measures to manage the financial fallout from the global effects of the pandemic, including salary reductions, employee redesignations, retrenchments, and separation schemes.

It has become a common practice for employers to use Mutual Separation Agreements (MSAs) — which also go by various other names such as “settlement agreements”, “separation agreements”, and “termination agreements” — to bypass or shortcut the usual termination processes. Many employers, as well as employees, view MSAs as a “cleaner” way of ending the employment relationship — instead of feeling like s/he has been “sacked”, the employee can be made to feel that the exit is on his/her terms, and employers prefer the certainty of clearly documented and mutually-agreed terms.

However, it is not uncommon for MSA exits to be improperly handled, resulting in a successful unfair/constructive dismissal claim by an employee, and a high financial cost to the employer. Some of my earlier articles would also be relevant for readers interested in this topic:

  1. Retrenchments in Malaysia — some recent cases (29 May 2020).
  2. Case Update: Insufficient justification and improper handling of Voluntary Separation Scheme may give rise to unfair dismissal (20 March 2019).
  3. Case Update: Can an employee bring an unfair dismissal claim after accepting a severance payment? (16 November 2017).
  4. What you need to know about the law on retrenchment of employees (22 January 2016).
  5. Handling employee dismissals properly under Malaysian law (13 January 2016).

In this article, we will review the Industrial Court case of Thanasegaran C Munusamy v. Vale Malaysia Minerals Sdn Bhd (Award No. 1647 of 2020), where the employee, Thanasegaran (the Employee) had signed an MSA, but then lodged an unfair dismissal claim against the employer, Vale Malaysia (the Company).

Continue reading →