Malaysia Case Analysis

1369 Words6 Pages
5.0 Case Analysis This case is discussed and fought in the Industrial Court of Malaysia. The reference under Section 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 by the Honourable Minister of Human Resources Malaysia, is related to the dismissal of Khoo Ee Peng (“the Claimant”) by Galaxy Automation Sdn. Bhd. (“the Respondent”). It was dated the 28th of August 2006 and received by the Court on the 10th of October 2006. The representative for the Claimant is Ajit Singh Jessy; M/s Jessy & Associates, while the representative for the Respondent is Edward Ong Hong Hing; M/s Meng Wai & Associates. The Claimant commenced the employment on the 15th of March 2005. She was appointed as a Sales Executive to the Bukit Mertajam Branch of the Respondent Company on a monthly salary of RM1,600.00 by the Letter of Appointment. Her working hours are from Monday to Friday were from 8.15 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. and for Saturday from 8.15 a.m. to1.00 p.m. On the 4th of April 2005, the Claimant Khoo Ee Peng told her Branch…show more content…
In such a situation, the employee is entitled to regard the contract as terminated and himself being dismissed.” In Unfair Dismissal Cases by John E. McGlyne, 2ndedition, 1979 on page 36: “It is well at this point to emphasise that a constructive dismissal may be made up of a number or a series of incidents- it may be something which develops over a period of time. A comparatively trivial incident following in the wake of more serious grounds for complaint against the employer, may operate as the “last straw” so as to justify the employee’s resignation.” In Bryn Perrin’s Industrial Relations and Employment, the learned author stated the requirements for constructive dismissal to operate as follows: 1. There must be a breach of contract by the employer, either anactual breach or an anticipatory

More about Malaysia Case Analysis

Open Document