Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Employment Law MCO Unpiad Leave

EMPLOYMENT LAW

Whether Employer shall pay full salary to the Employees during Movement Control Order (“MCO”)?

  • It depends.
  • Throughout the MCO period, the Employer shall pay full salary to the Employees if the Employer can sustain its financial situation.
  • However, if there is a business downturn due to unprecedented events such as Covid 19 pandemic and MCO imposed by our Government, the Employer may seek for consent from the Employees to opt for pay cut during the MCO period.

Does pay cut lead to constructive dismissal?

(i) No

  • If the Employer has obtained consent from the Employee; and/or
  • If the Employment Contract provides for pay cut.

(ii) Yes

  • If the Employer does not obtain consent from the Employee and has unilaterally imposed pay cut on the Employee; and/or
  • If pay cut is not provided under the Employment Contract.

Note:

The courts have previously held that unilateral reduction of salary when the Employment Contract does not say so and without consent of the employee is a fundamental breach and tantamount to repudiation of contract of employment.

(Murugesan a/l Subramaniam v Professional Services Sdn. Bhd [2015] 2 LNS 0466 and Dr. Rayanold Pereira v Menteri Sumber Manusia & Anor [1997] 3 CLJ Supp 116)

Can Employer compel the Employee to take annual leave/unpaid leave?

  • Generally, the Employer shall continue to pay the salary to the Employee.
  • However, if the Employer suffered from financial situation and can justify it, the Employer can ask the Employee to take annual leave/unpaid leave, provided consent has been obtained.
  • Failing which, it may lead to constructive dismissal as it is a fundamental breach of contract.
  • The Employer must always act in good faith and be transparent to the Employee.

Sorotan Terkini

NAVIGATION AND SHIPPING LAW – COLLISION REGULATIONS – COLLISION AT SEA – A WAKE-UP CALL FOR ADHERING TO NAVIGATION RULES

The collision between the FMG Sydney and MSC Apollo highlights the critical importance of adhering to established navigation rules. Deviations, delayed actions, and reliance on radio communications instead of clear, early maneuvers can lead to disastrous outcomes. This case serves as a stark reminder for mariners: follow the rules, act decisively, and prioritize safety above assumptions.

Read More »

SHIPPING AND ADMIRALTY IN REM – A SINKING ASSET – COURT ORDERS SALE OF ARRESTED VESSEL TO PRESERVE CLAIM SECURITY

In a landmark admiralty decision, the High Court ordered the pendente lite sale of the arrested vessel Shi Pu 1, emphasizing the principle of preserving claim security over the defendant’s financial incapacity. The court ruled that the vessel, deemed a “wasting asset,” could not remain under arrest indefinitely without proper maintenance or security. This case reinforces the necessity for shipowners to manage arrested assets proactively to prevent significant financial and legal repercussions.

Read More »

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.

Read More »

COMMERCIAL CONTRACT – FORCE MAJEURE OR JUST EXCUSES? LESSONS FROM LITASCO V DER MOND OIL [2024] 2 LLOYD’S REP 593

The recent decision in Litasco SA v Der Mond Oil and Gas Africa SA [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 593 highlights the strict thresholds required to invoke defences such as force majeure and trade sanctions in commercial disputes. The English Commercial Court dismissed claims of misrepresentation and found that banking restrictions and sanctions did not excuse payment obligations under the crude oil contract. This judgment reinforces the importance of precise contractual drafting and credible evidence in defending against payment claims, serving as a cautionary tale for businesses navigating international trade and legal obligations.

Read More »

SHIPPING – LETTER OF CREDIT – LESSONS FROM UNICREDIT’S FRAUD CLAIM AGAINST GLENCORE

The Singapore Court of Appeal’s decision in Unicredit Bank AG v Glencore Singapore Pte Ltd [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 624 reaffirms the principle of autonomy in letters of credit and highlights the high evidentiary threshold for invoking the fraud exception. Unicredit’s claim of deceit was dismissed as the court found no evidence of false representations by Glencore, emphasizing that banks deal with documents, not underlying transactions. This case serves as a critical reminder for international trade practitioners to prioritize clear documentation and robust due diligence to mitigate risks in financial transactions.

Read More »

LAND LAW – PROPERTY SOLD TWICE: OWNERSHIP NOT TRANSFERRED IN FIRST SALE

This legal update examines the Court of Appeal’s decision in Malayan Banking Bhd v Mohd Affandi bin Ahmad & Anor [2024] 1 MLJ 1, which reaffirmed the binding nature of valid Sale and Purchase Agreements (SPAs) and the establishment of constructive trust. The court dismissed claims of deferred indefeasibility by subsequent purchasers and a chargee bank, emphasizing the critical importance of due diligence in property transactions. The decision serves as a cautionary tale for financial institutions and vendors, reinforcing the need for meticulous compliance with legal and equitable obligations.

Read More »
ms_MYMY
× Hubungi Kami