In Woon Kim Choy v Acexide Technology Sdn Bhd & Anor and another appeal [2024] MLJU 3109<\/em>, the appellants, Woon Kim Choy and Chang Heng Keong, were removed as directors of Acexide Technology Sdn Bhd during an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) convened by the majority shareholders. Following their removal, the appellants initiated claims for minority oppression and also sought remedies for alleged unlawful dismissal under the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (\u201cIRA\u201d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n i. Whether the appellants as executive directors of the Company, were also engaged as employees of the Company and so qualify as a \u201cworkman\u201d under the IRA? This decision shows the dual capacity in which individuals can serve as both directors and employees of a company. It affirms that removal as a director does not necessarily terminate employment unless due process is followed under the IRA. Companies should carefully document roles and responsibilities to avoid ambiguity, and directors seeking protection should ensure clear employment terms. The case also highlights the importance of adhering to statutory definitions and procedural fairness in employment disputes.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" 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.<\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":5749,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1570],"tags":[1589],"class_list":["post-5748","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-company-law","tag-sale-goods-terms-sample"],"yoast_head":"\nLegal issues<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
ii. Whether evidence such as EPF and SOCSO contributions and income tax deductions constitute indicia of an employment relationship?
iii. Whether the reliefs claimed in a minority oppression action by the appellants as shareholders of the Company preclude their claim for compensation in lieu of reinstatement for unlawful dismissal as an employee\/ \u201cworkman\u201d?<\/p>\n\n\n\nCourt Findings<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
Practical Implications<\/h3>\n\n\n\n