Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

Kategori: Undang-undang Pekerjaan

Undang-undang Pekerjaan

EMPLOYMENT – RETRENCHMENT – INDUSTRIAL COURT UPHOLDS GLOBAL RESTRUCTURING: REDUNDANCY VALID DESPITE ONGOING WORK OVERSEAS

In Sin Leong v BT Systems (M) Sdn Bhd [2025] 4 ILJ 221, the Industrial Court upheld the employer’s retrenchment exercise following a global restructuring, ruling that the claimant was lawfully dismissed due to genuine redundancy. Although the claimant’s functions continued in India, the Court held that the abolition of the entire Malaysian team sufficed to establish redundancy. The company’s profitability did not negate the restructuring, and the LIFO principle did not apply since the whole department was closed. The decision reinforces that courts will respect managerial prerogative, provided the retrenchment is bona fide and not tainted by mala fide or victimisation.

UNFAIR DISMISSAL – MEDICAL LEAVE IS NOT MISCONDUCT: HIGH COURT UPHOLDS INDUSTRIAL COURT’S PROTECTION OF SICK EMPLOYEE

In Aerodarat Services Sdn Bhd v Lawerance Raj a/l Arrulsamy & Anor [2025] 11 MLJ 26, the High Court dismissed an employer’s judicial review and affirmed that prolonged medical leave does not, by itself, amount to misconduct justifying dismissal. The Court held that the employer failed to prove the critical element of intention not to return to work or unwillingness to perform contractual duties, despite high absenteeism caused by serious illness and surgery. The ruling reinforces that employers must distinguish between genuine illness and misconduct, and cannot rely on medical absence alone to terminate employment.

LABOUR LAW – CONSTRUCTIVE CLARITY: COURT REINFORCES BOUNDARIES ON EMPLOYER CONDUCT AND EMPLOYEE RIGHTS

In the significant decision of Sudhir a/l AK Kumaren v Industrial Court of Malaysia & Anor [2025] 3 MLJ 698, the Court of Appeal clarified the scope of constructive dismissal, emphasizing employers’ obligations toward transparency and good faith in managing employment relationships. The Court decisively ruled that actions such as compulsory leave, removal of duties without clear justification, and creating ambiguity about an employee’s role amount to a fundamental breach of the employment contract. This judgment highlight the critical importance of mutual trust and communication in employment contracts, reinforcing protection against employer misconduct.

EMPLOYMENT – CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL VIA TRANSFER: WHEN MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE CROSSES THE LINE

In Saharunzaman bin Barun v Perodua Sales Sdn Bhd & Anor [2025] 2 MLJ 17, the Court of Appeal reinstated the Industrial Court’s decision that three long-serving employees were constructively dismissed after being ordered to report for duty at distant branches within three days, following their refusal to resign and accept a fixed-term contract with an associated company. The Court found that Perodua’s actions were unreasonable, mala fide, and amounted to a fundamental breach of the employment contract, especially as no valid work permits were arranged for postings in Sabah and Sarawak. The ruling affirms that “reasonableness” clauses in transfer provisions carry enforceable weight and cannot be used as tools for disguised terminations.

EMPLOYMENT LAW – IS DIRECTOR A DIRECTOR OR EMPLOYEE? UNPACKING DUAL ROLES IN EMPLOYMENT LAW

The Court of Appeal clarified the dual roles of directors as both shareholders and employees, affirming that executive directors can qualify as “workmen” under the Industrial Relations Act 1967. The decision emphasizes that removal as a director does not equate to lawful dismissal as an employee unless due process is followed. This case highlights the importance of distinguishing shareholder rights from employment protections, ensuring companies navigate such disputes with clarity and fairness.

INDUSTRIAL LAW – NAVIGATING THE LEGALITIES OF RETRENCHMENT

The dismissal of X by Company ABC, citing economic downturns, presents a compelling case on the complexities of employment termination and retrenchment legality. X contested his redundancy, claiming his role in property management and services was unaffected by the property development market’s challenges. This case probes into the legitimacy of retrenchment under economic duress and the employer’s duty to act in good faith, as guided by Section 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967. The burden rests on Company ABC to prove the necessity and genuineness of X’s redundancy, with failure to do so possibly leading to a verdict of unjustified termination. This scenario underscores the critical importance of evidence and intention in retrenchment cases, as reflected in precedents like Akilan a/l Subramanian v. Prima Awam (M) Sdn Bhd.

ms_MYMY
en_USEN zh_TWZH ms_MYMY