MUHAMMAD AIMAN FARHAN BIN MOHD

NAMES MATRIC NO. 012022020631

SHAHRIN
EMPLOYMENT LAW AND EMPLOYEE
SUBJECT CODE BLW20403
RELATIONS
BACHELOR IN HUMAN CAPITAL
PROGRAMME
MANAGEMENT
GROUP INDIVIDUAL
5 OCTOBER
TH

LECTURER JOGESWARI RAMAMOORTHY DUE DATE

2023

THIS ASSIGNMENT IS TO ACHIEVE:

COURSE OUTCOME 1:
 Understanding the concept of employee’s rights in employment according to the Employment
Act, 1955.

PROGRAMME EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES (PEO)

1. Examine the common law rights of employers and employees.
2. Explain their knowledge and understanding and employ the applicable skills in the area of law
and practice.
3. Explore the legal safeguards in place to ensure that employees receive a minimum standard
of treatment as well as protection for their wellbeing and privacy.

INSTRUCTION:
1. This assignment will cover 30% for the coursework.
2. This cover page must be printed on GREEN paper.
3. If you have any difficulties in submitting the assignment, please come and consult the
lecturer.

QUESTION:
Perform mini research on reported court cases which breach the employees’ rights in the workplace
from the legal perspective. Students need to provide a summarization of THREE (3) complete court
cases from each topic chosen. The students must read and analyze the content of the act, journal or
articles, and extract the important information.

FORMAT:
1. Arial with 11pt.,
2. Margin: use A4 – Normal
3. Spacing: 1.5
Case 1: Ahmad Ritzialli bin Ahmad Rosli v Casasl Gourmet Sdn Bhd (Unfair Dismissal).......3
Case 2: Inter Heritage (M) Sdn. Bhd. (Sheraton Imperial Kuala Lumpur) v
KesatuanKebangsaan Pekerja-Pekerja Hotel, Bar & Restoran Semenanjung Malaysia
(Payment of Wages)...........................................................................................................................4
Case 3: Kesatuan Pekerja Telekom Malaysia Bhd v Telekom Malaysia Bhd (Sick Leave)......5
References.........................................................................................................................................7
Table of Content

Case 1: Ahmad Ritzialli bin Ahmad Rosli v Casasl Gourmet Sdn Bhd (Unfair Dismissal)

Introduction

Unfair dismissal refers to the termination of an employee's employment contract in a manner

that is considered unjust, unreasonable, or in violation of employment laws or regulations. It
occurs when an employee is dismissed without proper cause, without following due process,
or in a discriminatory manner. Unfair dismissal cases often involve allegations of wrongful
termination, breach of contract, or violation of employee rights. These cases typically require
a thorough examination of the circumstances surrounding the dismissal, including the
reasons provided by the employer and the fairness of the procedures followed. The
resolution of unfair dismissal claims often involves legal proceedings or alternative dispute
resolution methods to determine whether the termination was indeed unfair and to seek
appropriate remedies for the affected employee.

Summary of Case
Without providing adequate notice or justification, the claimant's employment was
terminated. By email, the claimant inquired about the status of his job; this was done orally
and without giving the required notice as stipulated in the offer letter. The business then
responded by sending out a notice of termination that included six reasons in all. The firm
contests the claimant's right to a permanent termination upon the occurrence of specific
circumstances. include the claimant who performs at a level below what is considered
acceptable. In any case, at the discussion, the claimant and the company discussed the
reasons behind his termination.

Court's Decision
The court awards and directs that the company pays to the claimant a total sum of
RM18,000.00 which calculated by RM2,500.00 times by 12 months equals to RM30,000.00.
From overall sum that the company need to pay, they deducted 15% for the psot-dismissal
earnings and 25% for the contributory misconduct and the equal is RM18,000.00.

Conclusion - related to the case and decision made according to which act and
section The claimant was fired without giving the required notice or explanation, as stated in
the offer letter. In response to the claimant's question concerning their job status, the
corporation sent out a notice of termination, listing poor performance as one of the reasons
for the dismissal. Sections 20(3), 20, and 30 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1967 (6A)

Table of Content

Case 2: Inter Heritage (M) Sdn. Bhd. (Sheraton Imperial Kuala Lumpur) v Kesatuan
Kebangsaan Pekerja-Pekerja Hotel, Bar & Restoran Semenanjung Malaysia (Payment of
Wages)

Introduction
The payment of wages is a fundamental aspect of the employer-employee relationship,
ensuring that employees receive compensation for their work. It encompasses the timely and
accurate disbursement of wages, including salaries, bonuses, allowances, and other forms
of remuneration as agreed upon in the employment contract or mandated by labor laws. The
payment of wages is not only a legal obligation for employers but also a crucial factor in
maintaining employee satisfaction, motivation, and overall well-being. This introduction sets
the stage for further exploration of the various aspects of wage payment, including legal
requirements, methods of payment, deductions, and dispute resolution mechanisms in case
of wage-related issues.

Summary of Case
The Andaman Resort Sdn. Bhd.'s Andaman A Luxury Collection Resort in Langkawi and
Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-Pekerja Hotel, Bar & Restoran Semenanjung Malaysia will
be discussed. All parties involved agreed that the outcome of this case would control the
other. Nonetheless, the two cases were heard in isolation, and distinct awards were to be
given in each case. Tan Sri Dato' Azman Shah Bin Dato' Seri Haron (COW2) and Tai Chew
Yen (COW1A) were the two witnesses called by the Hotel in this case, while the Union
declined to call any witnesses. The Court granted the Hotel's request to modify its Statement
of Case. Beginning on March 15, 2017, both parties filed their bundles of authorities and
submissions in support of the case. Both sides submitted additional written contributions in
2018 on various dates.

Court's Decision
This Court has carefully evaluated the argument that denying the hotel the ability to employ
all or part of the service charge towards minimum wage would severely disrupt the hotel
industry and the hospitality sector as a whole. Additionally, it would result in an unequal
salary distribution among employees who work for companies covered by and outside the
purview of the first California Civil Code. Moreover, it would have severe negative financial
repercussions for the hotel, raising doubts about the hotel's ability to continue operating. A
decision like that would not be consistent with the meaning of the previously cited sections
30(4) and 30(5) of the IRA 1967.

Conclusion - related to the case and decision made according to which act and
section.
The conclusion of the statement is that the Court has considered the evidence, relevant
laws, and provisions, including section 30(4) of the IRA 1967, which requires the Court to
consider the public interest, financial implications, and the effect of the award on the
economy and industry. The Court also takes into account section 30(5) of the IRA 1967,
which requires the Court to act according to equity, good conscience, and the substantial
merits of the case. Based on these considerations, the Court unanimously orders that the
Hotel is entitled to restructure the wages by including part or all of the service charge with
the basic wage to meet the minimum wage requirement of RM900.00 per month in
compliance with the MWO 2012.

Table of Content

Case 3: Kesatuan Pekerja Telekom Malaysia Bhd v Telekom Malaysia Bhd (Sick Leave)

Introduction
Sick leave is a crucial employee benefit that allows individuals to take time off from work
when they are ill or injured, without facing financial hardship or the risk of losing their job. It is
a form of paid time off that provides employees with the opportunity to prioritize their health
and well-being, recover from illnesses, and seek necessary medical care. Sick leave policies
vary across organizations and jurisdictions, but they typically outline the entitlement, accrual,
and usage of sick leave days. This introduction sets the stage for further exploration of the
importance of sick leave, legal requirements, employer obligations, and the impact of sick
leave on employee productivity and overall workplace well-being.

Summary of Case
In this instance, there is a labour dispute involving the deduction of an employee's wages
following an imposition of penalty between a corporation and a union member. The
employee was found guilty of three out of four counts during a domestic inquiry, and as a
result, the punishment a 12-month delay of the yearly wage increase was imposed. The
corporation contends that deferring the increment is the only penalty and that taking a pay
decrease for an employee's absence is not punishment at all. The union argues that the
deferment is punitive and in violation of the collective agreement because it goes beyond the
12-month period and amounts to double punishment. The employee is believed to have
received two separate punishments for the same offence, which will have a lasting effect on
her wage increase for the remainder of her work with the company. The question before the
court is whether or not there was double punishment.

Court's Decision
The court decision is that the company has proven, on the balance of probabilities, that there
was no double punishment when the employee's salary was deducted for her absence from
work on specific dates. The punishment handed down was a deferment of annual salary
increment for 12 months after a Domestic Inquiry. Therefore, the court concludes that there
was no double punishment in this case.

Conclusion - related to the case and decision made according to which act and
section.
Based on the entirety of the evidence presented, including oral and documentary testimony,
as well as the submission and consideration of section 30(5) of the IRA, this court
determines that the Company has established, on the balance of probabilities, that there was
no double punishment when the employee's salary was withheld for her absences from work
on July 8, 2015, September 17, 2015, and November 9, 2015, following the imposition of a
12-month suspension of her annual salary increase following a domestic inquiry.
References