Semester 2 2019 Mid-term Test

(October 2019)

Faculty of Business and Economics

This past year paper is indicative of the question format and the
examiner’s expectation. The marks allocation may vary.

EXAM CODES: BTX5220

TITLE OF PAPER: International Issues in Employment Law

EXAM DURATION: 2 hours writing time

READING TIME: 30 minutes reading and noting time

THIS PAPER IS FOR STUDENTS STUDYING AT: (tick where applicable)

 Caulfield  Clayton  Parkville  Peninsula
 Monash Extension  Off Campus Learning  Malaysia  Sth Africa
 Other (specify)

During an exam, you must not have in your possession any item/material that has not been
authorised for your exam. This includes books, notes, paper, electronic device/s, mobile phone,
smart watch/device, calculator, pencil case, or writing on any part of your body.  Any authorised
items are listed below.  Items/materials on your desk, chair, in your clothing or otherwise on your
person will be deemed to be in your possession. 

No examination materials are to be removed from the room. This includes retaining, copying,
memorising or noting down content of exam material for personal use or to share with any other
person by any means following your exam.

Failure to comply with the above instructions, or attempting to cheat or cheating in an exam is a
discipline offence under Part 7 of the Monash University (Council) Regulations.

AUTHORISED MATERIALS

OPEN BOOK  YES  NO

CALCULATORS  YES  NO

SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED ITEMS  YES  NO

if yes, items permitted are:
 INSTRUCTIONS
1. This mid-term test carries 40% of your total marks.
2. You are required to ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS in the Answer Booklet provided.

Question 1 (20 marks)

Petrom Sdn Bhd (Petrom) was a petro-chemical company with a plant in Kerteh, Terengganu.
Petrom engaged the services of Albert and Chong through two separate consultancy
agreements.

Where Albert was concerned, the consultancy agreement dated 2 January 2017 expressly
described him as an independent contractor engaged for a duration of two years. However,
Albert was issued with an access card that granted him access to most restricted areas of the
plant which were barred to the majority of employees. Albert was given an office, where his
title ‘Director – Operations’ was prominently displayed on the door. The chief engineer of the
plant reported to Albert. Albert worked closely with the chief operating officer (COO) and
chief financial officer (CFO) of Petrom and was often invited to make reports to the Board of
Directors. Albert’s contract with Petrom expired on 1 January 2019. The human resource
department did not contact Albert concerning the renewal of his contract. He continued to
work and received monthly payments for the work performed. On 31 July 2019, Albert was
informed that his services were no longer required. He did not receive advance notice
concerning the cessation of his work or any severance pay.

Chong’s consultancy contract dated 2 January 2018 (for the duration of two years)
specifically stated that his expertise was required for the installation of new machinery.
Chong was also an expert on polymers. While at the plant, Chong ‘borrowed’ some of
Petrom’s equipment and appropriated some chemicals to conduct experiments at his personal
laboratory. Chong recently invented a new type of polymer, which he called ‘Strolene’. He
immediately filed an application to patent Strolene. Petrom claimed intellectual property
rights to Strolene and sought to have the patent registered in its name.

Answer the following questions:

(a) Could Albert bring a legal action against Petrom? (10 marks)

(b) Could Petrom claim intellectual property rights in respect of Strolene? (10 marks)
Question 2 (20 marks)
Aveera Fashion Sdn Bhd (Aveera), a company that distributes western designer brands,
recently revised its policy and procedures on several matters. First, the Trainee Recruitment
Policy was amended, such that a female designer who wishes to join Aveera’s paid training
programme must contractually undertake not to get pregnant within the 18 months training
period. Mandy, an existing trainee, was terminated when she was discovered to be pregnant.

Second, a written directive called ‘Event Attendance – Official Wear’ was issued by the
management. Among other things, the directive states that where an employee is required to
attend a fashion event or other formal functions, he/she must wear the clothing line and
accessories that Aveera represents. Tanya wore a Max Mara evening gown to the launching
of a new Cortina watch boutique. Tanya was verbally reprimanded by Zara, the talent
manager. This was followed by a warning letter.

Zara has also re-assigned an employee to a different role. Fatihah was previously a
receptionist. Upon returning from maternity leave, Fatihah decided to wear the purdah hijab.
Zara had a meeting with Fatihah and inquired about the reason behind her decision to observe
the Islamic dress code. Fatihah informed Zara that motherhood had changed her religious
outlook and the purdah best suited her interpretation of modesty. Zara told Fatihah, “I
understand, and I’ll look into how best to support your decision.” Within a week, Fatihah was
assigned to assist the female personal assistant of Aveera’s female chief executive officer
(CEO). Fatihah recently resigned and wished to sue Aveera for discrimination on religious
grounds.

Answer the following questions:

(a) Was Aveera entitled to terminate Mandy from the trainee programme? (7 marks)

(b) Was Aveera entitled to reprimand Tanya and issue the warning letter? (7 marks)

(c) Advise Fatihah on her rights, if any, against Aveera. (6 marks)

This past year paper is indicative of the question format and the
examiner’s expectation. The marks allocation may vary.