Latest news with #IndustrialCourt
New Straits Times
23-05-2025
- Business
- New Straits Times
Court awards RM86k to ex-aircraft refueller over unjust dismissal
KUALA LUMPUR: A former aircraft refueller has been awarded RM86,450 in compensation and back wages by the Industrial Court after it ruled that his dismissal by Petronas Dagangan Berhad (PDB) was without just cause or excuse. Industrial Court chairman Zalina Awang @ Mamat also found that Mohd Taufik Mohd Aris, who served the company for nearly nine years, had committed misconduct by submitting recreated training records and signing on behalf of others. However, the court held that the company's decision to terminate him was disproportionate. According to court documents, Mohd Taufik was dismissed in December 2022 after a domestic inquiry found that he had falsified a refuelling log to show he was on duty on a day he was on leave, and had signed On-Boarding Programme (OBP) forms on behalf of colleagues. He argued that he had done so based on information from the company's system, and only after repeated instructions from his superior, following a grievance he had filed over a poor performance rating. The court acknowledged that Mohd Taufik's actions constituted misconduct, but ruled that they did not justify dismissal, citing mitigating factors including emotional stress following his father's death, workplace pressure, and a clean service record. "The court accepts that falsification of official documents and signatures constitutes serious misconduct. "However, it is also established that these actions occurred in the context of the claimant (Mohd Taufik) attempting to support a grievance appeal, under emotional strain following his father's passing, and under perceived pressure from his superior. "There is no evidence that the claimant stood to benefit financially or acted with malicious intent. "Therefore, the court must consider the proportionality of the penalty imposed," the ruling said. Zalina said the court was satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the company had failed to prove that the termination of the claimant was with just cause or excuse. "The claimant did not have any history of misconduct proven by the company. "The company's decision to terminate the claimant's employment was procedurally unfair and carried out in an unjust manner. "There was no evidence at all to show that the company had suffered any financial loss or that its reputation was tarnished as a result of the claimant's alleged misconduct," she said. Zalina added that the company had dismissed the claimant hastily and arbitrarily, with the allegations raised suddenly and in bad faith. "The company could have dealt with the allegations (if proven) in a less severe manner, such as through proper management action and/or understanding of the issues affecting its employees, particularly the claimant in this instance," she added. The court awarded Mohd Taufik RM59,850 in back wages (after a 10 per cent deduction for proportionality) and RM26,600 in compensation in lieu of reinstatement. Petronas Dagangan was represented by lawyers Vijayan Venugopal and Peter H. Santiago, while S. Mariappen appeared for the claimant.
Daily Express
05-05-2025
- Business
- Daily Express
Company used separation scheme to avoid paying retrenchment, court rules
Published on: Monday, May 05, 2025 Published on: Mon, May 05, 2025 By: K Parkaran, FMT Text Size: Canon Opto's downsizing of its workforce in June 2020, in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic, amounted to a retrenchment, the Industrial Court said. (Facebook pic) PETALING JAYA: A camera lens manufacturer placed some workers in a mutual separation scheme five years ago to avoid paying out retrenchment benefits, the Industrial Court has ruled. The court questioned the company's decision to downsize its workforce 'all of a sudden' during the Covid-19 pandemic, when movement restrictions were in place, 'unless the company decided to reduce its workforce during that period'. S Vanithamany, chairman of the industrial court in Kuala Lumpur, said the downsizing 'in essence is a retrenchment', which would have demanded higher rates of compensation. The court held that Canon Opto (M) Sdn Bhd, which has a factory in Shah Alam, had violated the collective agreement for failing to consult the union on the separation scheme. In a judgment handed down recently, the court said the management chose not to consult or notify the union on the ground that the collective agreement touched only on retrenchment and not a mutual separation scheme. However, Vanithamany said the company is required to consult the union, representing the workers, whenever it makes a decision which involves massive (number of) employees and especially with regards to their employment. Vanithamany held that those selected for the downsizing were not redundant nor surplus to requirements. In June 2020, the company offered separation letters to 59 workers who were selected based on what the company termed as poor performers and those who had taken too many days off on sick leave. They were offered compensation at a flat rate of 0.8 of their basic salary for each year served, while the collective agreement set out one month's salary for each year for those with up to 10 years' service, and 1.25 months' salary for those with more than 10 years. The offer led to a protest by the Canon Opto Workers' Union who said they were not consulted as required. Vanithamany said the employees may have been misled into accepting the separation scheme because of the lack of advice from the union. They may have decided differently if the union had been involved, she said. 'In the absence of the union involvement, the element of voluntariness is unacceptable,' she held. Vanithamany heard the case with a panel comprising employees' representative Nor Adzlan Mohd Jazlan and employer's representative Ku Sim Ling. Munjit Singh and Alfred Iruthiaraj from the Malaysian Trades Union Congress appeared for the union while David Tan Seng Keat defended the company. When contacted, Munjit said the union will now be seeking compensation for the former employees. * Follow us on Instagram and join our Telegram and/or WhatsApp channel(s) for the latest news you don't want to miss. * Do you have access to the Daily Express e-paper and online exclusive news? Check out subscription plans available. Stay up-to-date by following Daily Express's Telegram channel. Daily Express Malaysia
Free Malaysia Today
05-05-2025
- Business
- Free Malaysia Today
Company used separation scheme to avoid paying retrenchment, court rules
Canon Opto's downsizing of its workforce in June 2020, in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic, amounted to a retrenchment, the Industrial Court said. (Facebook pic) PETALING JAYA : A camera lens manufacturer placed some workers in a mutual separation scheme five years ago to avoid paying out retrenchment benefits, the Industrial Court has ruled. The court questioned the company's decision to downsize its workforce 'all of a sudden' during the Covid-19 pandemic, when movement restrictions were in place, 'unless the company decided to reduce its workforce during that period'. S Vanithamany. S Vanithamany, chairman of the industrial court in Kuala Lumpur, said the downsizing 'in essence is a retrenchment', which would have demanded higher rates of compensation. The court held that Canon Opto (M) Sdn Bhd, which has a factory in Shah Alam, had violated the collective agreement for failing to consult the union on the separation scheme. In a judgment handed down recently, the court said the management chose not to consult or notify the union on the ground that the collective agreement touched only on retrenchment and not a mutual separation scheme. However, Vanithamany said the company is required to consult the union, representing the workers, whenever it makes a decision which involves massive (number of) employees and especially with regards to their employment. Vanithamany held that those selected for the downsizing were not redundant nor surplus to requirements. In June 2020, the company offered separation letters to 59 workers who were selected based on what the company termed as poor performers and those who had taken too many days off on sick leave. They were offered compensation at a flat rate of 0.8 of their basic salary for each year served, while the collective agreement set out one month's salary for each year for those with up to 10 years' service, and 1.25 months' salary for those with more than 10 years. The offer led to a protest by the Canon Opto Workers' Union who said they were not consulted as required. Vanithamany said the employees may have been misled into accepting the separation scheme because of the lack of advice from the union. They may have decided differently if the union had been involved, she said. 'In the absence of the union involvement, the element of voluntariness is unacceptable,' she held. Vanithamany heard the case with a panel comprising employees' representative Nor Adzlan Mohd Jazlan and employer's representative Ku Sim Ling. Munjit Singh and Alfred Iruthiaraj from the Malaysian Trades Union Congress appeared for the union while David Tan Seng Keat defended the company. When contacted, Munjit said the union will now be seeking compensation for the former employees.
