MANAGING

SICK LEAVE
 EA 1955 - SECTION 60F
SICK LEAVE ENTITLEMENT

EXAMINATION BY:
• REGISTERED MEDICAL
PRACTITIONER DULY APPOINTED BY
THE EMPLOYER
• ANY OTHER REGISTERED MEDICAL
PRACTITIONER OR BY MEDICAL
OFFICER - *TIME AND DISTANCE
 EA 1955 - SECTION 60F
SICK LEAVE
14 days
per calendar year
< 2 years service

18 days > 2 years – 5 years

per calendar year service

22 days > 5 years service

per calendar year

For Hospitalisation, total number of days of paid sick leave inclusive

of normal sick leave is 60 days aggregate per calendar year
 COST OF 1 DAY
M/C
e.g. An employee with RM1,000 salary
a) SALARY - 1,000 - RM 33.30 PER DAY
b) 30
MEDICAL FEES - RM 30.00
c) OVERTIME WORK

4.80 x 1.5 x 8 RM 57.60

TOTAL COST RM121.00

Additional Cost 363%

 SICK LEAVE
CARLSBERG CASE (AWARD 33/89)
- M/C BY NON PANEL DOCTOR
Company Panel Clinic
24 Hours
GH Klang
Batu Tiga
Klang Town

Given M/C
Whether Company obliged to recognise M/C?
Whether Emergency
- Illness?
- Rheumatism/fever
MALAYSIAN EMPLOYERS FEDERATION?
 SICK LEAVE
ORIENTAL ACRYLIC (AWARD 244/89)
- M/C BY HOSPITAL ASSISTANT

DOCTOR NOT AVAILABLE.

ONLY HOSPITAL ASSISTANT AVAILABLE –
ISSUED 1 DAY M/C – HOSPITAL ASSISTANT
MAY ISSUE M/C UP TO 2 DAYS.
COMPANY REFUSED TO RECOGNIZE M/C.
MEDICAL ACT 1971 – ANY M/C MUST BE
SIGNED BY REGISTERED MEDICAL
PRACTITIONER.
 ABUSE OF SICK
Zen
Zen Concrete
LEAVE
Concrete Ind.
Ind. Sdn.
Sdn. Bhd.
Bhd. vv Mohd
Mohd Badri
Badri
(Award
(Award No.
No. 72/2000)
72/2000)
Employee in the habit of obtaining M/C before or after rest day and
public holidays
1990
1990 -- days [Total
77 days [Total –– M/C
M/C 17
17 days
days (14)]
(14)]
1992
1992 -- 12 days [Total
12 days [Total –– M/C
M/C 22
22 days
days (18)]
(18)]
1993
1993 -- days [Total
99 days [Total –– M/C
M/C 19
19 days
days (18)]
(18)]
1994
1994 -- days [Total
88 days [Total –– M/C
M/C 25
25 days
days (22)]
(22)]
Warnings - 1990 - 2 times
1993 - 2 times
1994 - 1 time
Counseling - 1995 - 2 times
 ABUSE OF SICK LEAVE
[CONTINUED]
29/09/95 - given last warning and gave
directive to only obtain M/C from
Company panel of Doctors nearest his
house
20/12/95 - Charged for taking excessive M/C
and obtaining M/C from different panel
clinics for 2 days
- Punishment
Stoppage of increment for 1 year
Obtain M/C from panel clinic
near his house
15/04/96 - Obtained M/C from appointed
clinic
 ABUSE OF SICK LEAVE
[CONTINUED]
15/4/96 - Applied annual leave for 18/4/96

16/4/96 - Obtained M/C from 24 hours

clinic (non panel)
- Rejected – obtained M/C on
18/4/96
- Jan – July 1996 - 14 days M/C
- 10 days
before/ after rest
day/PH

D I Conducted - employee dismissed

 SICK LEAVE
COURT
[CONTINUED]
Taking M/C within entitlement – not a
misconduct – issued by Co’s panel Dr.
16/4/96 – employee obtained M/C from non-
appointed clinic.
Dismissal justified
Employee in breaching Co’s directive had
misused his sick leave entitlement.
If he go to his appointed clinic he may not
be given M/C.
MALAYSIAN EMPLOYERS FEDERATION
 LEN BROTHERS’
CASE
Employee visited Co’s Panel Clinic at 1.30p.m. Dr.
certified employee not sick. Employee went to non panel
& given 1 day M/C. Co. dismissed the employee.

COURT
Dismissal justified.
Employee had breached the provisions of
section 60F EA & CA to obtain medical
treatment from Co’s panel Doctor.
MALAYSIAN EMPLOYERS FEDERATION
 EIWU V TAMCO CUTTLER
HAMMER
• FREQUENTLY VISITING CO. DR.
• TAKING AWAY MUCH TIME AND ENGAGING OTHER
WORKERS TO COVER HIM
• NO. OF VISITS – 1975 - JUNE 1979 – 216 TIMES
– COST RM1899.00
• EMPLOYEE SENT FOR FULL MEDICAL
EXAMINATION. DR. CERTIFIED EMPLOYEE
MEDICALLY FIT EXCEPT THAT EMPLOYEE HAD
POOR MOTIVATION TO WORK.
 EIWU V TAMCO CUTTLER
HAMMER [CONTINUED]
INDUSTRIAL COURT – Dismissal Justified

Claimant
Claimant was
was indifferent
indifferent towards
towards his
his
job
job by
by constantly
constantly visiting
visiting Co.
Co. Dr.
Dr. –– on
on
majority
majority of
of occasions
occasions Dr.
Dr. found
found
employee
employee was
was medically
medically fit.
fit.
Claimant
Claimant committed
committed gross
gross misconduct
misconduct
of
of malingering.
malingering.
MALAYSIAN EMPLOYERS FEDERATION
MALAYSIA SMELTING CORP.
BHD.
• EMPLOYEE – FURNACE LABOURER
• PERSISTENTLY TAKEN EXCESSIVE M/C
1982 - 27% AVAILABLE MANDAYS/YR
1983 - 23%
1984 - 21%
1985 - 25%
1986 - 17%
1987 - 42%
After due inquiry – dismissed by
 MALAYSIA SMELTING CORP.
BHD. [CONTINUED]
INDUSTRIAL COURT – Dismissal Unjustified

Taking
Taking sick
sick leave
leave –– not
not misconduct
misconduct
Taking
Taking excessive
excessive M/C
M/C unknown
unknown
misconduct
misconduct in:
•• Common
Common lawlaw
•• Statutory
Statutory law
law
•• Industrial
Industrial law
law
MALAYSIA SMELTING CORP.
BHD. [CONTINUED]
HIGH COURT

Company’s
Company’s appeal
appeal –– allowed
allowed
Persistent
Persistent taking
taking excessive
excessive M/C
M/C not
not
to
to come
come to
to work
work –– misconduct
misconduct
 MALAYSIA SMELTING CORP.
BHD. [CONTINUED]
FEDERAL COURT

Employee’s
Employee’s appeal
appeal allowed
allowed
Taking
Taking excessive
excessive M/C
M/C not
not aa well
well
known
known misconduct
misconduct