Yeo Law Chambers

Legal Articles

Employee Termination: Giving Notice is Sufficient?

Question:

.

“Hi Mr. Yeo, my business has been facing significant challenges lately, and I find it necessary to terminate the contracts with some of my employees. For this, I have checked the terms of my company’s employment contracts (signed with them), and it appears that either party can initiate the termination of the employment relationship by providing one month’s notice in writing.

.

Hence, I would like to inquire whether I can just simply give them one month’s written notice to terminate their employment. As I am very concerned about the possibility of my employees’ lodging complaints against me with the Labour Department. I would greatly appreciate your advice and guidance on proceeding with this matter. Thanks! “

.

Answer:

.

1.     In Malaysia, the employment relationship between employers and employees is governed by two primary legislations: the Employment Act 1955 and the Industrial Relations Act 1967. These acts provide the legal framework for various employment-related matters, including termination procedures, rights, and obligations of both employers and employees.

.

2.     Unlike the employment concept in the United States, where employers and employees can generally terminate their relationship “at will“, Malaysia’s labour laws place significant emphasis on safeguarding the rights of employees.

.

3.     In Malaysia, the termination of employees’ contracts requires employers to provide “just cause and excuse” for the dismissal. This principle was affirmed by the Court of Appeal in the landmark case of Hong Leong Equipment Sdn. Bhd. v Liew Fook Chuan and Anor [1996] 1 MLJ 481. In this case, the court recognized that the employment tenure of employees should be protected similarly to property rights unless there are valid and justifiable grounds for termination:

.

“The legislature has willed that the relationship of employer and workman as resting on a mere consensual basis that is capable of termination by the employer at will with the meagre consequence of paying the hapless workman a paltry sum as damages should be altered in favour of the workman. It has accordingly provided for security of tenure and equated the right to be engaged in gainful employment to a proprietary right which may not be forfeited save, and except, for just cause or excuse”

.

4.     In other words, in Malaysia, the termination of employment contracts goes beyond the requirement of providing sufficient notice. Employers are obligated to provide just cause and excuse when terminating the employment of their employees as well.

.

5.     It is pertinent to note that the same legal requirement of just cause and excuse does not apply when employees themselves wish to terminate their employment. In such cases, the employment concept aligns more closely with the “at-will” principle commonly seen in the United States. As long as employees provide sufficient notice as per the terms outlined in their employment contract or agreement with the employers, their resignation is considered sufficient and legally compliant.

.

6.     What constitutes “just cause and reason” for termination is not explicitly defined in the Employment Act 1955 or the Industrial Relations Act 1967 in Malaysia. However, based on established case law, the courts generally consider several factors to determine if just cause and reason exist for termination.

.

7.     These factors typically include the initial reasons for hiring the employee, the responsibilities outlined in the employment contract, and whether the actions or behaviour of either party violate commonly accepted practices to the extent that it becomes impossible for the employer to continue the employment relationship. It is important to note that the evaluation of just cause and reason is determined on a case-by-case basis, considering the specific circumstances and facts surrounding each situation.

.

8.     Therefore, when it comes to terminating an employee, it is generally required to have a justifiable reason, typically rooted in the employee’s misconduct. According to the case of Goon Kwee Phoy v. J&P Coats (M) Bhd, it is crucial that the employer must clearly state the reasons for dismissal/ just cause and excuse in the termination letter. The employer cannot add other reason(s) after the employee lodged a complaint, and the Court will not consider these ‘new grounds for dismissal’.

.

9.     In situations where an employee has not committed any wrongdoing, but the employer intends to terminate the employment relationship due to financial constraints or other business-related reasons, there are specific mechanisms available in Malaysia. The employer can opt for a voluntary separation scheme (VSS) or a mandatory separation scheme (retrenchment) to manage the termination process.

.

10.     Regarding retrenchment, employers in Malaysia have a responsibility to not only ensure that the compensation offered complies with the Employment (Termination and Lay-off Benefits) Regulations 1980 but also to take various measures into account before implementing such layoffs.

.

11.     We will explain this in our next article. If you have any further inquiries or require additional assistance on this matter, please feel free to contact us: https://wa.link/q3kmv5

.

Like & Follow our Facebook Page to get more legal information.

.

You can learn other legal information from our website:https://www.yeolaw.my/

.

#YeoLawChambers #YLC #employmentdispute #labourlaw #employmentagreement #Bandardatoonn #法律 #杨律师事务所 #劳工纠纷 #劳工合同 #劳工法 #新山律师

Industrial Court 胜诉后,可以得到什么赔偿?

. “陈先生是本地一家工厂的生产经理,在公司服务了整整20年。 . 半年前老板外国毕业的儿子接手工厂的运营后,便开始对陈先生及其他资深员工百般挑剔。平日鸡蛋里挑骨头,放大生产过程中一些小问题,让这些在工厂服务多年的老臣子倍感压力。 . 最近工厂突然接到一笔紧急订单。由于时间紧迫,陈先生和团队无法在短时间内完成订单。没想到老板的儿子竟以陈先生严重失误为由,直接将陈先生解雇。 . 陈先生对此感到十分不满。毕竟这笔订单是老板的儿子临时决定接下的,事前既没有征询陈先生的意见,也没有了解团队能否在指定时间内完成。面对解雇决定,陈先生甚至连解释的机会都没有。 . 在不服气之下,陈先生决定向工业关系局(JPPM)提出投诉,希望争取应有的权益,同时也想了解:如果成功挑战不公平解雇,他究竟可以获得什么赔偿?” . 以上是一个虚拟个案。在这一期的法律文章中,我们将以马来西亚劳动法为背景,带大家了解员工因不公平解雇而向工业法庭提出申诉,胜诉后可能获得的赔偿。 如果你对这一期的法律文章感兴趣,欢迎继续阅读我们的法律文章: ....

Contract for Service vs Contract of Service

. “黄先生是一位清洁公司的老板从21岁开始创业,经过多年的努力经营,如今公司已发展到相当规模,团队人数接近500人。 . 然而随着公司不断扩张,人事管理问题也越来越复杂。黄先生发现,几乎每个月他都需要安排admin前往劳工局处理各种员工投诉和纠纷。 . 为了改善情况,黄先生聘请了两位具有人力资源(HR)背景的经理,专门负责员工合同、纪律管理及人事事务。虽然相关问题有所改善,但人事管理工作依然占用了公司大量时间和资源。 . 于是其中一位HR经理向黄先生提出一个建议:让所有新入职员工签署为期6个月的 Contract for Service(CFS)。. 按照该经理的说法,一旦员工出现任何问题,公司便可依据合同条款终止双方的合作关系。由于双方签署的是 Contract for...

劳工法庭&工业法庭的分别

在马来西亚,劳资纠纷可以通过不同的法律途径解决,其中人力资源部(简称JTK)和工业关系部(简称IRD)是两个主要解决雇主&员工争议的政府机构。两者各自的职能和法律程序不同。在我们今天的法律文章里,我们会向读者解释这两个机构的主要区别以及以上模拟案件的解决方案

马来西亚最低退休年龄

杨律师你好,我有关于退休的问题想要询问你。在三十年前,我跟几个朋友成立了一间做棕油出口公司。如今已经有了一定的规模,每一年都有不错的收入。我也是这间公司的其中一个director。可是就在上个月,我们的大股东突然建议我退休,理由是我已经57岁了表现没有以前那么好。我想请问你马来西亚有法定的退休年龄吗?如果公司这里还是坚持要我退休,请问我可以采取什么行动?在我退休后,我有权跟公司拿一笔退休金吗?