EMPLOYMENT LAW – RETRENCHMENT EXERCISE – EMPLOYMENT DISMISSAL – LAST-IN FIRST-OUT (LIFO)

What is retrenchment?

Retrenchment is an action taken to terminate the employment in the event of redundancy in the workforce of a company.
Redundancy is a situation where the employee or position is no longer required. In short, it is when an employer has more employees than it needs.

Criteria for selecting employees to be retrenched

Code of Conduct for Industrial Harmony (“the Code”) provides guidelines on retrenchment exercises.

This includes:

Ability
Experience
Skill and occupational qualifications
Length of service
Status (non-citizen, casual, temporary, permanent)
Age
Family situation

A commonly applied principle – “Last-In, First-Out” (“LIFO”).

The most junior employee (in terms of length of service) would be retrenched first, compared to those who have served for a longer duration.

Section 60N of the Employment Act 1955 – Employers should terminate the services of foreign workers first before considering local employees.

Although the Code does not have force of law, employers are encouraged to comply with LIFO.

To justify not using LIFO, an employer must provide clear evidence to prove that an employee does not have the skills required for the job.

In what situation can a company retrench an employee?

There must be redundancy.
The dismissed employee must have been correctly selected for retrenchment (objective criteria).
Retrenchment must be done in good faith and not with motives of any unfair labour practices. In short, the employer must have a fair procedure in place before carrying out retrenchment.
The burden of proving that the retrenchment is bona fide lies with the employer. It is not for the employee to show that the retrenchment is unfair.

The burden is on the employer to prove actual redundancy. The employer has a duty to prove that the circumstances were such that the employees’ functions has to be reduced because they are considered redundant.

Case in point: Ng Chang Seng v Technip Geoproduction (M) Sdn Bhd & Anor [2021] 1 MLJ 447. Court of Appeal (Putrajaya) – Civil Appeal no: W-02(A)-692-04 of 2019

Sorotan Terkini

STRATA MANAGEMENT – MANAGEMENT FEE SHOWDOWN – RESIDENTIAL VS. COMMERCIAL – WHO’S PAYING FOR THE EXTRAS?

In a landmark decision in Aikbee Timbers Sdn Bhd & Anor v Yii Sing Chiu & Anor and another appeal [2024] 1 MLJ 94 , the Court of Appeal clarified the rules on maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions in mixed strata developments. Developers and management corporations can impose different rates based on the distinct purposes of residential and commercial parcels. The judgment emphasizes fairness, ensuring residential owners bear the costs of exclusive facilities like pools and gyms, while commercial owners aren’t subsidizing amenities they don’t use. This ruling highlights the importance of transparency in budgeting and equitable cost-sharing in mixed-use properties.

16 Disember ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

ILELGAL MONEYLENDERS – WHEN LOANS CROSS THE LINE: KEY LESSONS FROM SHIM VUI GEH V DAYANG MASTURAH ON ILLEGAL MONEYLENDING AND PROPERTY SECURITY

Can a simple loan lead to a legal battle over property ownership? This case reveals how improper security arrangements and high-interest rates can turn financial help into a courtroom showdown, highlighting the critical importance of understanding loan agreements and compliance with the law.

16 Disember ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

ILLEGALITY OF UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS’ CLAIM – FINDER’S FEES AND ILLEGALITY: COURT DRAWS THE LINE ON UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS

In a pivotal ruling, the Court of Appeal clarified that finder’s fee agreements are not automatically void under the Valuers, Appraisers, Estate Agents and Property Managers Act 1981. The Court emphasized that illegality must be specifically pleaded and supported by evidence, and isolated transactions do not trigger the Act’s prohibition. This decision highlights the importance of precise pleadings and a clear understanding of the law’s scope.

16 Disember ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

COMPANIES ACT – OPPRESSION – DRAWING THE LINE: FEDERAL COURT DEFINES OPPRESSION VS. CORPORATE HARMS

In a decisive ruling, the Federal Court clarified the boundaries between personal shareholder oppression and corporate harm, overturning the Court of Appeal’s findings. The Court held that claims tied to the wrongful transfer of trademarks belonged to the company, not the individual shareholder, reaffirming that corporate harm must be addressed through a derivative action rather than an oppression claim.

16 Disember ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

COMPANIES LAW – WHEN DIRECTORS BETRAY: COURT CONDEMNS BREACH OF TRUST AND CORPORATE MISCONDUCT

In a stark reminder of the consequences of corporate betrayal, the court found that the directors had systematically dismantled their own company to benefit a competing entity they controlled. By breaching their fiduciary duties, conspiring to harm the business, and unjustly enriching themselves, the defendants were held accountable through significant compensatory and exemplary damages, reaffirming the critical importance of trust and integrity in corporate governance.

16 Disember ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

JURISDICTION – CHOOSING THE RIGHT COURT: THE SEA JUSTICE CASE HIGHLIGHTS WHERE MARITIME DISPUTES SHOULD BE HEARD

In The Sea Justice cases [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 383 and [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 429, the Singapore courts tackled a key question: which country should handle a maritime dispute when incidents span international waters? After examining the location of the collision, existing limitation funds in China, and witness availability, the courts concluded that China was the more appropriate forum. This ruling highlights that courts will often defer to the jurisdiction with the closest ties to the incident, ensuring efficient and fair handling of cross-border maritime disputes. This approach is also relevant in Malaysia, where similar principles apply.

17 November ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

MY

× Hubungi Kami