INDUSTRIAL RELATION

PES 2343

MUHAMMAD ZULASYRAF B MOHD SENAIL

&
AZHAR BIN ABD RAHIM
SUPPIAH VELLAISAMY V. THE NEW
STRAITS TIMES PRESS(MALAYSIA)
BERHAD
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR

FRANKLIN GOONTING
(THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL
COURT)
AWARD NO.302 OF 2009
12 MARCH 2009
CASE ISSUE

Constructive Dismissal:

“ Occurs when employer breaches an

employee’s contract.”
SUPPIAH VELLAISAMY
The Claimant
Employed: 2nd September 1977 as Proof
Reader
Under C.A:
 28 days Annual leave.

 28 days Medical leave.

Trade Unions: National Union Newspaper

Workers(NUNW)(General secretary)
Freelance copy writer: Murad Hashim
Assiociates
THE NEW STRAITS TIMES
PRESS(MALAYSIA)BERHAD

 The Respondent.

 Employer of the claimant.

 One of Malaysian press.

PLEADED PARTICULARS
I. Non-approval of annual leave
II. Unjustified and oppressive pay cuts
III. The issuing of shoe caused letters
IV. Being denied a fair and reasonable
discretionary ex gratia payment; and
V. Arbitrary reduction of contractual
bonus payment in breach of the C.A
[ same complaint with (ii)]
I. NON-APPROVAL OF ANNUAL
LEAVE
 Excessive leaves.

 Admits working with another company

(Murad Hashim Associations as freelance
copy writter) during many of leaves.

 Agreed unjustified leave in 1997.

II. SALARY CUTS

 Respondent had deducted claimant

salary and contractual bonus ( 1994-
1996)

 Respondent was recovering money from

the claimant sick leave and annual leave
taken beyond entitlement.
III. ISSUING SHOW CAUSE LETTERS

 Respondent issue two cause letters for

claimant absence's explanation.
IV. DENIED FAIR AND REASONABLE EX
GRATIA PAYMENT

 Given only rm100 as ex gratia payment

compare to other colleagues.

 Alleged victimization of claimant union

activities.
RESPONDENT’S EVIDENCE
 Leave procedure application.

 Informed memo of disapproval leave

application.

 Show cause letter (failed of submitted

documentary evidences).
RESPONDENT’S EVIDENCE (CON’T)
 Changes of rest day.

 Measurement of ex gratia payment.

 Deduction of remuneration.

 Claimant’s Trade Union activities.

EVALUATION & FINDINGS
 Respondent was entitle to reject claimant
leave application.(under C.A)

 claimant had no ground to disputed

respondent’s accounts.

 Respondent had aright to seek claimant

from going on leave prior approval.
EVALUATION & FINDINGS (CON’T)
 Ex gratia payment was at the discretion
based on performance.(not contractual
right)

 Claimant had taken annual leave over and

above entitlement.

 Moonlighting while on annual leave,

casual leave or medical leave and getting
paid.
CONCLUSION

THE CLAIM DISMISSED.