employment

Case Update: Factors considered by the Industrial Court in determining the identity of the employer in a multi-jurisdictional employment relationship

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.

In this era of the multinational corporation, it is common for employees to be carrying out most (or even all) of their work in one jurisdiction, while technically being employed by an employer entity in another jurisdiction. This could either be because the employer does not have a local entity, or because the employee was initially employed by an entity in one jurisdiction but was subsequently assigned to a post in another jurisdiction, or for a host of other commercial reasons.

We therefore see increasingly complicated employment relationships — the core employment contract being supplemented by assignments, secondments, or some other similar arrangements both formal or otherwise — which in time can lead to confusion over who the actual employer entity is, and more importantly, which jurisdiction the employer is in. Some of these arrangements can get even more convoluted with the introduction of other structures such as third party employment or payroll service providers or local host entities.

Identifying the correct employer entity becomes important when an employee seeks recourse at the Industrial Court. It is not as straightforward as determining which entity pays the employee’s salary, or owns the office the employee spends most of his time in. Once it is determined that the employer entity is in another jurisdiction, can the Industrial Court hear the matter?

The relevant factors were recently considered by the Industrial Court in two cases — Lars Kruse Thomsen v. Hot-Can Sdn Bhd (Award No. 1629 of 2017), and John Brian Chesson v. Baker Hughes (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd (Award No. 119 of 2018).

Continue reading →

Case Update: What can an employer do upon discovering that an employee lied in a job application?

Marcus van Geyzel1 Comment

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.

The hiring process can often be tricky for employers. In the Malaysian job market, it is common for employers to receive hundreds of applications for certain vacancies. Employers then have to comb through these applications, shortlist candidates to be interviewed, and make a hiring decision based on fairly limited information.

To reduce the time spent on this process, many employers do not conduct thorough background checks on job applicants. The experience and employment history stated in the applications are often assumed to be accurate, with some allowance given for an expected reasonable degree of exaggeration.

What is the recourse for an employer who, soon after hiring an individual, realises that the employee had lied in his job application? Does this false information constitute just cause for an employment termination, or will the dismissal enable the employee to bring a successful unfair dismissal claim?

The Industrial Court considered these issues in two recent awards — Khoo Kim Loang v. Shock Media Studio Sdn Bhd (Award No. 51 of 2018) on 4 January 2018, and Khoo Kim Loang v. Kim Siah Electric Co Sdn Bhd (Award No. 137 of 2018) on 12 January 2018 — interestingly both involving the same Employee.

Continue reading →

Case Update: Federal Court decides whether punishable misconduct in employment law is distinguishable from criminal conduct

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.

Misconduct is one of the reasons which would qualify as “just cause” for an employer to dismiss an employee.

However, it’s not straightforward to pin down an exact definition of what constitutes “misconduct”. Even in instances where actions can be broadly categorised as misconduct, there is often confusion as to whether —

  • a misconduct is serious enough to justify dismissal instead of a lighter sanction; and
  • the standards to be applied to misconduct in the context of employment law are the same as those in respect of criminal wrongdoing.

This potential for confusion was illustrated in a recent case dealing with an employee dismissal for misconduct which went from the Industrial Court (“IC”) through to the High Court (“HC”), Court of Appeal (“COA”), and was ultimately decided by the Federal Court (“FC”). The issues were fully considered in the recent grounds of judgment of the FC dated 8 January 2018 in Akira Sales & Services (M) Sdn Bhd v Nadiah Zee binti Abdullah and Another Appeal (Federal Court Civil Appeal Nos. 01-15-05/2016 and 01-16-05/2016).

Continue reading →

Case Update: Relevant issues when an employer uses financial difficulties as a reason for retrenchment

Marcus van Geyzel2 Comments

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.

As explained in an earlier article (What you need to know about the law on retrenchment of employees), the basic legal position in Malaysia in relation to retrenchments is clear and settled: It is the prerogative of the management to decide on the reorganisation of it business, and the courts will not intervene unless it is shown that the employer’s decision was not in good faith.

One of the accepted reasons for a retrenchment is where the business is experiencing financial difficulties, or where a reorganisation of the workforce is deemed necessary to increase efficiency or cut costs.

What are the factors to be considered when assessing whether cost-effectiveness or financial reasons are sufficient to constitute a genuine reason for retrenching employees?

The Industrial Court considered this in Mohd Azhan Ariffin v. Ranhill Berhad (Award No. 920 of 2017). The claimant (Employee) was retrenched, and paid retrenchment benefits, on the basis that the respondent (Employer) could no longer sustain him in the business due to financial constraints.

Continue reading →

Case Update: Can an employee bring an unfair dismissal claim after accepting a severance payment?

Marcus van Geyzel1 Comment

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.

Malaysian employment law is relatively pro-employee when it comes to termination of employment. Based on the fundamental principle of security of tenure, any termination by an employer must be with just cause. In practice, just cause can sometimes be difficult to establish.

To avoid having to establish just cause — and to terminate an employment relationship without being exposed to the risk of an unfair dismissal claim — many employers opt to negotiate a mutual separation with the employee.

Typically, some form of monetary compensation (and sometimes other terms as well) is negotiated between the parties, and documented in a mutual separation agreement. The agreement will usually contain a clause to the effect that the employee confirms that the separation package and terms are in full settlement of any claims the employee may have, and that the employee will not bring an unfair dismissal claim.

So what happens where a mutual separation agreement is signed, and the employer makes the agreed compensation payment, but the employee then proceeds to file an unfair dismissal claim?

The relevant legal principles were recently considered by the Industrial Court in Raul Fabrizio Casserini v. George Fischer (M) Sdn Bhd [2017] 3 ILR.

Continue reading →

Case Update: Employer’s poor handling of workplace assault and harassment complaints amounts to constructive dismissal

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.

Most employers are now aware of the importance of having clear policies and processes when it comes to handling complaints and disciplinary issues. It’s the norm for businesses hiring a reasonable number of employees to have in place various codes of conduct, guidelines, and policies.

Despite this, an employer that receives an employee complaint and acts on it could still be at risk of being deemed to have breached the terms and conditions of employment, or severed the employment relationship, due to shortcomings in how the complaint was handled.

The Industrial Court recently considered these issues in Justin Maurice Read v. Petroliam Nasional Berhad (Petronas) (Award No. 965 of 2017). In this case, the claimant (the Employee) had complained of being assaulted and harassed in the workplace. The Employee then claimed that the manner in which these complaints were handled by the company (the Employer) entitled him to claim to have been constructively dismissed.

Continue reading →