Incorporating Employment (Amendment) Act 2022
Latest MEF Research Publications 2021 - Out Now!
jQuery Carousel
Member Login

  User ID
  Password
 
Forgot Password
   

MEF Academy Events
 27[AeU] CERTIFICATE HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (CHRM)Commencement Date: 27 November 2022
 28[IT] Microsoft Excel Functions & Formulas28-29 November 2022  (9.00 AM – 5.00 PM)
 29[UNITAR] MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (November Intake)(November Intake)
 02[UCSI] Power Presentation2-3 December 2022
 05[Face to Face] Occupational Safety and Health Coordinator Trained Person 5 -7 December 2022 (9:00 AM – 5:00 PM)
 05[SVTT] Health Safety Environment5 December 2022 (9.00 AM – 5.00 PM)
 06[IT] Microsoft Excel Essential Skills6-7 December 2022 ; 5-6 January 2023  (9.00 AM – 5.00 PM)
 08WEBINAR ON EMPLOYMENT (AMENDMENT) ACT 20228 December 2022 (9.00 AM – 5.00 PM)
 09The updated Malaysian Code on Corporate Governance (MCCG 2021) 9 December 2022 (9.00 AM – 5.00 PM)
 15[Face to Face] Negotiating for Results15-16 December 2022 (9.00 AM – 5.00 PM)
 15[Face to Face] The Practical Aspects of Collective Agreement Negotiations15-16 December 2022 (9.00 AM – 5.00 PM)
 20Assessment of the Board, Committees & Directors and Nominating & Remuneration Committees20 December 2022 (9.00 AM – 5.00 PM)
 

Selected Industrial Court Awards
Search Industrial Court Awards
Company/Claimant/Tags          
13682022HBI Enterprise vs Muhd Hazizi Bin IsmailSafeguarding its interests and in complying with the instructions issued, the Company was required to obtain the test results of the Covid 19 swab test from an employee before issuing approval to the employee to cross states to report for work at the worksite Held in favour of : Company Tags:   dismissal, MCO, Covid-19, swab test
  
4772014Tujuan Ehsan Sdn. Bhd vs Chiew Foong NgorThe employee was employed with the company as a probationer for six months. She was fully aware of the provision in the Company’s Handbook which stated that the employee was deemed to remain a probationer before receiving notification by formal letter regarding confirmation. The company extended the probation period twice due to the employee’s poor performance. Held in favour of : Company Tags:   probation, poor performance, dismissal
  
4742014Nanyang Siang Pau Sdn Bhd vs Chua Fang Lin​The employee was employed as a Lithographer. Due to financial problems, the Company decided to restructure and reduce the total number of staff and transfer the rest based on their skills, competencies and qualifications. Later, the Company reassigned the employee as a Checker with no change in her salary and in accordance with the Collective Agreement. However, the employee did not report for duty. Held in favour of : Company Tags:   restructure, transfer, insubordination
  
4342014BJ Services (M) Sdn Bhd vs Sockalingam A/L R.N. DharmalingamThe employee was employed by Sarku-Nowsco Well Services Sdn Bhd on Jan 1, 1992. On Sept 28, 2001 there was a buyout of Sarku-Nowsco by the company. The company notified the employee that as he had attained the retirement age of 56 years, the company was exercising its option to retire his services. Held in favour of : Company Tags:   unfair dismissal, retirement, fixed term contract
  
4232014Malaysian Airline System Berhad vs Moktar Bin BadaniThe company contended that the employee had no authority or business to be at the gate of a restricted area at the airside Post 1 where the incident occurred and that the employee knew that he should not accept any items through the gate. Held in favour of : Company Tags:   theft, abetment, security
  
2972014Amanah Saham Nasional Berhad vs Dennis Ak UjohThe employee was the Ketua Pejabat at the Amanah Saham Nasional Berhad Branch in Sibu, Sarawak from June 2004 until his transfer to head the company’s office in Sri Aman in December 2005. Held in favour of : Company Tags:   misconduct, false claims, transfer, dismissal
  
322014Sapura Brake Technologies Sdn Bhd vs Mawlud Mustain​He was employed as Marketing Manager and was transferred many times during his employment. He contended that he was constructively dismissed when he was transferred from the Marketing to the Human Resource and Administration Department. Held in favour of : Company Tags:   constructive dismissal, transfer
  
52014Bella Industries Sdn. Bhd. vs Aloysies Fathianathan​The employee alleged that he had been employed by the company as a Director with a basic salary of RM2,000 and a fixed monthly allowance of RM5,000, altogether totalling RM7,000. He claimed that the company failed to provide him his balance wages of RM4,000 for the month of April and wrote to the company asking them to settle his wages failing which he could claim constructive dismissal. Held in favour of : Company Tags:   constructive dismissal, contract of employment
  
32014Misc Berhad vs Zulhilmi Bin Fauzi​The employee was employed as a General Purpose Caterer and his Letter of Appointment subjected him to random drug or alcohol test by the company. The employee together with some other crew members were subjected to drug test and the results were positive. The company issued him his termination letter and dismissed him. Held in favour of : Company Tags:   drugs, dismissal, misconduct
  
/Side Banners/NMI.png
/Side Banners/PublicHoliday.jpg
/Side Banners/Membership-with-a-Click.jpg
/Side Banners/TalentCorp_170x55.jpg
/Side Banners/KWSP_170x104.jpg
/Side Banners/JobsMalaysia_170x92.jpg
/Side Banners/ace_170x153.jpg
/Side Banners/cape_170x50.jpg
/Side Banners/ioe_170x95.jpg
/Side Banners/ilo_170x90.jpg

   ©  Copyright 2022 Malaysian Employers Federation  |  All Rights Reserved.