Jayadeep Hari & JamilJayadeep Hari & JamilJayadeep Hari & JamilJayadeep Hari & Jamil
  • About
  • Our People
    • Partners
    • Consultant
    • Associates
  • Practice Areas
  • Publications
    • Legal Updates
    • Legal Cauldron (Temporary suspended)
    • Articles
    • News & Bulletin
  • We Care
  • Careers
  • Contact Us

Legal Update 21 of 2022

    Home Legal Updates Legal Update 21 of 2022
    NextPrevious

    Legal Update 21 of 2022

    By jhj admin | Legal Updates | 0 comment | 13 December, 2022 | 0

    “Whether or not press statements made by an employee in his capacity as a trade union officer or member, against his employer should warrant his dismissal?”

    Case:

    ISMAIL NASARUDDIN ABDUL WAHAB v MALAYSIAN AIRLINE SYSTEM BHD [2022] MLRAU 230

    Brief Facts:

    • The Respondent, Malaysian Airlines Berhad (“MAS”) was the national carrier of Malaysia.
     
    • The Appellant, Ismail Nasaruddin (“Ismail”) was an employee of Malaysian Airline System Bhd (“MAS“) for 25 years.
     
    • At the material time, Ismail was also the President of the National Union of Flight Attendants Malaysia (“NUFAM“).
     
    • Sometime in 2013, the cabin crew employees of MAS were disgruntled and unhappy with MAS for the following reasons:
     

             i)  Weight Loss Exercise, a company ruling mandating the reduction of weight to achieve a certain BMI.

     

            ii)  Fleet Realignment Exercise (“FRE“), which severely affected many cabin crew’s schedules and wages.

     

    • Ismail referred the FRE issue to the Director General of Industrial Relations as a trade dispute.
     
    • Ismail and MAS failed to resolve the above issues.
     
    • Ismail in his capacity as President of NUFAM then issued a press statement where he highlighted inter aliathe plight of overworked and underpaid cabin crew members, and urged MAS to enact policies to ensure their welfare and safety.
     
    • In the course of doing so, Ismail called for the resignation of the CEO of MAS as a result of the latter’s inability to resolve the problems faced by the cabin crew under his leadership of MAS in 2011.
     
    • Ismail was ultimately dismissed by MAS for issuing the abovementioned press statement.
     
    • Ismail challenged his dismissal at the Industrial Court but was unsuccessful for the reason that they found the dismissal was with just cause and excuse.
     
    • Ismail challenged the decision at the High Court and the High Court reversed the decision by the Industrial Court.
     
    • MAS appealed to the Court of Appeal, whereby their appeal was allowed.
     
    • Ismail then appealed to the Federal Court.

    FEDERAL COURT DECISION- APPEAL ALLOWED!

    • Federal Court held that the Court of Appeal erred by focusing solely on Ismail’s obligations under his contract of employment or collective agreement without according sufficient consideration to his duties as President of NUFAM.
     
    • The Court of Appeal also failed to give any consideration as to whether the acts were in furtherance of his trade union activity.
     
    • The Federal Court further held that the contents of Ismail’s press statement relate wholly to problems faced by employees at the workplace and criticism of the management for failing to address the same.
     
    • The Federal Court also held that Ismail did not abuse his office as union president for personal interest.
     
    • The press statements were made in the name of NUFAM and for the benefit of the thousands of cabin crew members he represented with a view to improve workplace conditions.
     
    • In light of these circumstances, the Federal Court held that Ismail’s press statement amounted to participation in the lawful activities of a trade union and was not unreasonable, malicious, or knowingly or recklessly false.
     
    • In conclusion, an employee ought not to be dismissed for participation in trade union activities carried out in his capacity as a trade union officer or member, unless the activities are extraneous to trade union affairs, or were carried out maliciously, or in a manner which knowingly or recklessly disregards the truth.

    No tags.

    jhj admin

    More posts by jhj admin

    Related Post

    • Legal Update 9 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can a civil servant be dismissed from employment by a local authority without affording him the right to be heard? Case: PIHAK BERKUASA TATATERTIB MAJLIS PERBANDARAN SEBERANG PERAI & ANOR v. MUZIADI MUKHTAR [2020] 1Read more

    • Legal Update 10 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can the payment of quit rent, assessment rates, electricity and water bills be used to prove ownership of property? Case: HS REALTY SDN BHD v. YOW HONG SOON [2020] 1 LNS 230 Brief Facts: HSRead more

    • Legal Update 11 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can accused persons who are convicted of disobeying the Movement Control Order appeal for alternative punishment instead of imprisonment in the interest of justice? Case: CHIN CHEE WEI & ANOR V PP [2020] 1 LNSRead more

    • Legal Update 12 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can a foreign national have a permanent contract of employment? Case: AHMAD ZAHRI MIRZA ABDUL HAMID v. AIMS CYBERJAYA SDN BHD [2020] 1 LNS 494 Brief Facts: Ahmad, an expatriate, received a letter of appointmentRead more

    • Legal Update 13 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can the giving of legal advice by an adjudged bankrupt, whose practising certificate has been suspended, amount to practising law in contravention of the Legal Profession Act 1976? Case: DARSHAN SINGH KHAIRA v. ZULKEFLI HASHIMRead more

    • Legal Update 14 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can individual parcel owners enforce rights relating to common property on their own behalf? Case: SYARIKAT EAST COAST & ORS v. MAKNA MUJUR SDN BHD & ORS [2020] 2 MLRA 440 Brief Facts: Syarikat EastRead more

    • Legal Update 15 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      When is the point of time when a debtor is considered to be unable to pay his debts? Case: AFFIN BANK BERHAD V. ABU BAKAR ISMAIL [2020] 2 MLRA 99 Brief Facts: Affin Bank BerhadRead more

    • Legal Update 16 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Whether an article containing allegations of corrupt practices and giving of bribes was defamatory to the owner of an education institution? Case: EAGLE ONE INVESTMENT LTD & ORS V. ASIA PACIFIC HIGHER LEARNING SDN BHDRead more

    Leave a Comment

    Cancel reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    NextPrevious

    JHJ Bulletin

    • S.Jeyaraman: The Magic of Memory
    • Andreas Dorn: Your Unconscious Mind on Change and Money

    Legal Updates

    • Legal Update 22 of 2022
    • Legal Update 21 of 2022
    • Legal Update 20 of 2022
    • Legal Update 19 of 2022
    • Legal Update 18 of 2022
    • Legal Update 17 of 2022
    • Legal Update 16 of 2022

    Legal Cauldron

    • 2
      0

      Legal Cauldron 1 of 2016

      Click here to view & download
    • 2
      0

      Legal Cauldron 2 of 2015

      Click here to view & download
    Copyright 2017 All Rights Reserved Contact Us         Like & Follow Us On:Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
    • About
    • Our People
      • Partners
      • Consultant
      • Associates
    • Practice Areas
    • Publications
      • Legal Updates
      • Legal Cauldron (Temporary suspended)
      • Articles
      • News & Bulletin
    • We Care
    • Careers
    • Contact Us
    Jayadeep Hari & Jamil