Monday, August 29, 2016
When an employee being sued by an employer under section 69(2)(iii) or 69C, Employment Act 1995 for wages in lieu of notice. The act itself has provided statutory defense in the form of section 13(2) and section 14(3), both sections has requirements that if fully met, an employee can challenge the cause of action brought up by the employer to the labour department.
Section 13(2) dealt with breach of contract and usually read together with section 15(2) of the said act, if being used by an employee.
Section 14(3) are use exclusively by employees when in his opinion he or his dependent are in danger from the employment contract, a simple example is a clerk instructed by his employer to stand-in as a security guard in the absence of one.
Ponteng kerja adalah suatu masalah yang sukar ditangani oleh majikan dan mengganggu operasi harian dan kadangkala keseluruhan perniagaan.
Majikan sering dibebani dan dihujani dengan persoalan adakah telah cuba mencari, menghubungi dan mencuba bersungguh-sungguh mengetahui kedudukan pekerja semasa ketidakhadirannya. Terpahat di kotak fikiran majikan dan menjadi tangkal azimat mentera pekerja, majikan tidak prihatin tidak ambil peduli, kejam dan pelbagai gelaran jika kelihatan tidak ambil peduli ketiadaan pekerjanya.
Merujuk peruntukan khusus seksyen 15(2) Akta Kerja 1955 (Akta 265), adalah menjadi tanggungjawab pekerja secara statutori (di bawah akta parlimen/ undang-undang) untuk memaklumkan kepada majikan kenapa ponteng kerja dengan alasan yang munasabah.
Hujahan pekerja berkaitan majikan tidak prihatin tidaklah berasaskan undang-undang bertulis, sebaliknya berdasarkan tanggungjawab sosial, moral dan etika semata-mata.
Monday, August 8, 2016
..."an agreement enforceable by law is a contract" section 2 (h) Contract Act 1950...
A contract of service is a contract under Contract Act 1950, if not for the specific statues that governs it such as Employment Act 1955 and Industrial Relations Act 1967. The general principle not being dealt by specific labour law will still fall into Contract Act 1950.
At has come the attention of the authority, alien that only possessed document issued by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNHCR) seeking employment and employer often ask the labour department whether to accept them as employee or not.
The answer lies in the general rule of employment an any sovereign country, the only person that can take up employment is the citizen. In Malaysia, under the current interpretation of Employment Act 1955, a permanent resident has similar right as citizen as far as employment concern.
Other than the two, nobody can be accepted as an employee and enjoy the protection laid down by labour law. In the growing economy, job are redundant and the domestic supply of labour is insufficient. The government realizing this has decided to open the labour market to foreign worker. Equipped with proper travelling papers dan working permit, foreign worker enter the Malaysian labour market enjoying basically the same benefit as citizen and permanent resident. Thus adding the two group to three.
Other than the three, based on current policy and special circumstances, groups are granted the right to hold employment legally, for example foreigners spouse to Malaysian citizen, Acheh tsunami victim and I believe the Syrian refugee will also be given this special consideration.
A holder of UNHCR card, is not given this consideration, they can work to support their livelihood but in the event of non compliance of condition of service of their employment agreement between an employer and a UNHCR card holder they don't have the right to enforce the agreement. An agreement that cannot be enforce by law shall be void and will have no effect.
Based on the current rule and regulation, until Malaysia rectify ILO convention in relation to migrant worker or accept the status of refugee as in the Syrian refugee, a holder of UNHCR card shall not be able to file claims for non payment of wages amongst other in the labour department.
Sunday, August 7, 2016
benefit from an employee’s ordinary commute to and from work. We can also simplified this principle as punch in and punch out (clock-in clock-out), which during this interval an employer is liable to the action by employee or injury to the employee in the course of employment is one of the measurements weather cash payable is wages or not.
Friday, August 5, 2016
2. (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires -
"employee" means any person or class of persons—
(a) included in any category in the First Schedule to the extent specified therein; or
(b) in respect of whom the Minister makes an order under subsection (3) or section 2A;
for the purpose of determining whether a part, section or any provision under the act is applicable or not. One must remember the initial interpretation given under section 2.
for example, right of audience under section 85A to represent an employee under civil proceeding. Question arise are we going to be applying interpretation under section 2 which limit it to schedule employee, or we shall include employee under section 69B, since section 69B clearly state the applicability of the part which the right of audience fell into.
If we read together, section 2 and section 69B, then the context requires the interpretation of "employee" shall include employee with wages more than two thousand ringgit but shall not exceed five thousand ringgit.
Another interpretation is, section 69B only furthers the Director General of Labour power to hear, inquire into and decide claim by an employee against an employer, and with specific purpose shall not include any other task including representing an employee under a civil proceeding. The applicability of such part is in order to dispose the claim to the extents of what section 69B were intended to cater, that is to hear, inquire into and decide that's it. Anything further than that shall be exceeding the intention of section 69B.
This has come to my belief that, "a provision under an act of Parliament which can be interpreted with more than one interpretation, even by a layman shall construed as a bad law and need to be amended"
Monday, June 20, 2016
Salah satu kaedah penyelesaian pertikaian perhubungan perusahaan ialah dengan memahami bagaimana hubungan majikan pekerja boleh wujud. Bagaimana ia dicipta, di mana asalnya.
Masih lagi menggunakan teori fungsi majikan, dan mengambil model entiti perniagaan untuk memudahkan kefahaman. Peringkat awal suatu perniagaan, terutamanya milik tunggal seperti perniagaan nasi lemak. Setiap fungsi dilaksanakan sendiri.
Bermula dengan pembelian (purchase) bahan mentah, pembuatan (production), jualan dan pemasaran ( sale and marketing) kemudian kira-kira(book keeping) hinggalah kawalan kualiti (QC) dilaksanakan sendiri. Sehingga berlaku pertambahan dalam permintaan (surplus demand) maka bekalan/ penawaran (supply) perlu ditingkatkan. Pada peringkat inilah, ruang wujud, perniagaan perlu memutuskan mana-mana fungsi perlu diserahkan kepada pihak lain. Keputusan perlu dibuat di peringkat ini untuk mewujudkan kontrak perkhidmatan/ pekerjaan atau lain-lain bentuk hubungan seperti kontraktor bebas (independent contractor) atau sumber luar(out-source)
Jika memilih kontrak perkhidmatan, maka wujudlah pekerjaan. Begitulah wujudnya hubungan majikan pekerja.