Employee's Termination

In Malaysia, termination of employment falls under the purview of the Employment Act 1955 (“EA”), the Employment (Termination and Lay-Off Benefits) Regulations 1980, the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (“IRA”) and of course, letter of appointment/employment contract/contract of service. Although the provisions of the EA only cover EA employees (for the purpose herein, employees covered under the EA are all workers whose earnings do not exceed RM2,000.00 a month and all manual workers irrespective of their earnings under First Schedule), these principles of law are generally considered as guidelines for most employer-employee relationships, particularly in the absence of a written letter of appointment/employment contract/contract of service.. At the outset, it is to be highlighted that the employee must be a “workman” as defined under Section 2 of the IRA. It reads as follows:- “…any person, including an apprentice, employed by an employer under a contract of employment to work for hire or reward and for the purposes of any proceedings in relation to a trade dispute includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with or as a consequence of that dispute or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute.” In one landmark case of Inchcape Malaysia Holdings Bhd. v R B Gray & Anors. [1985] 2 MLJ 297,Supreme Court held the general understanding of the term “workman” will therefore cover all categories of employees irrespective of wages, levels and titles as long as they are not Directors or Managing Directors, who have the functions or authority that are deemed to be the directing mind of the Company. Basically, the Company has two (2) methods to terminate the employees:- a. Terminate summarily or given 24 hours written notice if the employee commit any breach of the terms of LOA or committed any act which is not in the Company’s interest. Before making a definite decision to summarily dismiss an employee because of serious misconduct, the Company need to identify exactly what the employees did that was unacceptable and the impact the misconduct had on the business. For an employee to be justifiable dismissed on the ground of his private conduct, it has to be of exceptional gravity or be capable of damaging the employer’s business. [Transport Workers Union v Syarikat Pengangkutan Kemajuan Sri Perak Bhd Award 161 of 1981]. OR b. Terminate by either party: i. given witten notice (working notice); OR ii. salary in lieu of notice (termination pay). The written notice should specify the period of notice given (or payment in lieu of notice if the employee is not required to work the notice period) and the date the employment will end. Either (i) or (ii) the Company would still need to pay salary to the employee. The different is just whether the Company want the employee to work in that notice period or not. Notice period can be waived/shorten by mutual consent between the Company and the employee. In Malaysia, an unfair dismissal claim may be litigated either in the civil court for common law wrongful dismissal or in the Industrial Court for dismissal without just cause or excuse. Section 20 of the IRA laid down that a dismissal must be with just cause and excuse. The just cause and excuse must be based on facts of each case, a misconduct, negligence or poor performance. The onus is on the employer to prove just cause and excuse [Great Wall Shopping Sdn Bhd v Gan Shang eng Award 241 of 1988]. Employee termination or dismissal must be with just cause and excuse and the common law principle of ‘termination simpliciter’ (i.e. a termination by contractual notice and for no reason) is not applicable in view of s.20 of the IRA. The Federal Court, in the case of Goon Kwee Phoy v J & P Coats [1981]2 MJL 129 held: ‘we do not see any material difference between a termination of the contract of employment by due notice on a unilateral dismissal of a summary nature. The effect is the same and the result must be the same.’ And in Dr. A. Dutt v Assunta Hospital [1981]1 MLJ 304 held: ‘… there is no material distinction between dismissal and termination. Either must be with just cause and excuse to be justifiable……’ Therefore, the Company cannot be terminated the employee without just cause or excuse either summarily or with notice. Very often companies will prepare fixed term contract of employment for their new employees. Their reasoning is simple, because the Companies can automatically have the right to not renew the contract when it expires. However, when some of the fixed term contract comes to an end an employer may continue to pay the employee to work and the employee may continue to come to work. The Company should be mindful that this conduct could be used as evidence that the employee’s functions are not temporary or seasonal in nature, and the contract is not a “genuine fixed term contract”. It is laid down in the case of Han Chiang High School/Penang Han Chiang Association v. National Union of Teachers in Independent School West Malaysia (award no. 306 of 1988) that the law allows parties to enter into fixed term contracts of employment where there is a genuine need for such contracts. However, whether a fixed term contract is indeed genuine or not is something which the Industrial Court must look into and scrutinize. If the Industrial Court makes a finding of fact that the fixed term contract is genuine, the matter then ends there as the contract has come to its natural end. However, should the Industrial Court make a finding of fact that the fixed term contract is not genuine and is a permanent contract dressed up to look like a fixed term contract, the company would then have to explain why the contract was not renewed. This is where the company would need to establish that the non-renewal, which is in effect actually a termination, was with just cause and excuse. Should the Company not be able to establish that the termination was with just cause and excuse the dismissal would then be set aside by the Industrial Courts. Based on the foregoing, a company cannot circumvent the provisions of Section 20 of the IRA, simply by placing their employees on a fixed term contract of employment and choosing to not renew it when the contract comes to an end. In order for the Courts to uphold it as a genuine fixed term contract, the employer must first prove that there was a genuine reason for the contract to be for a fixed period. For example, where the employee was engaged to work on a particular project or the work is seasonal in nature. When such a project comes to an end or when the season ends, the need for the employee would also come to an end . The same thing was applied in the case of Sime Uep Development Sdn. Bhd. v. Chuah Poi [1996] 1 ILR 256 whereby the Industrial Court held as follows,“It would appear that after having worked for four years with the company and possessing a clean record of service the claimant is not guaranteed security of tenure. Should the company be empowered to throw him out on the grounds that his contract has expired and that the company is in no position to offer him a new contract? The Court opines that this is a highly undesirable state of affairs, unconscionable and repugnant to the principle of security of tenure and an injustice that social justice seeks to correct under s.20 of the IRA. In the circumstances and after considering the evidence and in light of the principles enunciated above, the Court is of the considered view that it was an implied term of the claimant’s contract of employment with the company that he was in fact and in law a permanent employee and that the contract between them was a permanent one dressed up in the form of fixed term contracts. As such, since the finding of this Court is that the claimant is a permanent employee his services can only be terminated with just cause and excuse.” The Company must give the employee the letter of non-renewal and stipulate the reasons for non-renewal (taking into consideration of the employee’s current employment status with the Company with no contract) with cogent evidence. As a conclusion, a mere fact that an employee is placed on a fixed term contract does not give companies carte blanche to get rid of unwanted employees by not renewing their contract when it expires. Next, the questions arise would be whether the Company need to conduct a Domestic Inquiry for the dismissal. S20 Industrial Relation Act (“IRA”) does not specifically mention Domestic Inquiry. Further, the reviews of the cases at the Industrial Court have shown 3 decisions: a. No Domestic Inquiry is curable b. Court reprimanded employer that did not conduct Domestic Inquiry but still continue to hear the case on merit and decide whether the dismissal is with just cause and excuse. c. Must hold Domestic Inquiry before terminating employees under EA Therefore, the Company should be very slow to dismiss upon the ground that the employee is found to be unsatisfactory in his performance or incapable of performing the work which she is employed to do without first telling the employee of the respects that she is failing to do his job adequately, warning him of the possibility or likelihood of dismissal on this ground and giving him an opportunity of improving his performance. It is for the Company to find out from the employee why she is performing unsatisfactorily and to warn him that if she persists in doing so she may have to go [IE Project Sdn Bhd v Tan Lee Seng Award No. 56 of 1987]. Employer must justify for unsatisfactory work performance. To avoid unfair dismissal for the employee, it is advisable for the Company to serve at least 2 warning letters to the employee for his/her underperformance and thereafter to issue a show cause letter for him/her to explain the underperformance and finally Domestic Inquiry before terminating an employee. Even though IRA does not required the Company to conduct a Domestic Inquiry but the termination/dismissal must be conducted according to the principle of natural justice on the 2 main principles that “No man shall be judged in his own cause (nemo debet esse judex in propria causa)” and “No one should be condemned unheard (audiatur et altera pars) & hear the other side (audi alterm partem)”. Notwithstanding the above, the employee still can file their suit to IR for his/her dismissal because the definition of underperformance is vague and the employees’ rights and status under their employment contract are not decided solely on the words of the contract alone. The Courts will interpret the employee’s rights based on fair labour practice, equity and good conscience to ensure that the principle of security of tenure is not undermined.

放下

一个人,需要坚强,自信.需要学会做人,需要感悟人生,需要读懂自己。
放下压力，累与不累，取决与自己的心态。
放下烦恼，快乐其实很简单。
放下自卑，把自卑从字典里删去。
放下懒惰，奋斗改变命运。
放下消极，绝望向左，希望向右。
放下包圆，与其抱怨，不如努力。
放下犹豫，成功无限。
放下狭隘，心宽，天地就宽。

人生之路脚下走，生活之辛心间流，风霜雪雨，傲骨寒霜，细心品味，感悟人生…

笑看昨天…珍爱今天…期待明天……

凋零

我看见无边的潮水向我涌来
将那远古的断句轻轻吟诵
我触到清凉的海风把我包围
将那丰盈的心灵逐字铺展
我听到起伏的音符向我倾诉
将那神秘幽远的密码逐一破解

我已到过几块陆地
认识了几片海洋
在那些高耸的山巅
我看见太阳一次次地升起和隐没
在那些周而复始的的乡村
我沉入了一个人
孤独的日日夜夜
将自己虚弱的灵魂审视

我已追寻你的足迹
跨越生与死的边缘

你曾注视过的
那些延绵不绝的山脉
以及上面千年不化的积雪
你曾走过的原始森林
以及大地高低起伏的脉络
都在另一个时空得以转换
一切似乎停止
就连呼吸也变得缓慢
时间也仿佛凝固
我知道我已迈入你的疆土
触碰它的界限

在这里远古与文明
一次次地碰撞与交融
并完成了它的不朽
是的 我想要不朽
尽管我将逐渐凋零

Law is not for justice

大家都清楚，业内人是靠体制吃饭的，这勿庸置疑。可问题的关键是：到底是我们在靠体制吃饭，还是体制在靠我们发展？这之间是否存在着一种微妙的 平衡与相互利用？通常是我们被体制培养，最终又服务于这个体制。就拿本人做例证吧：本人上要上四年法律，现在也算上了两年， 初步的算入了门；不仅为学历自 豪，想来也因为自己是一个法律人而不由自主地在心里面高人一等了。其实“法律人”这个称谓可褒可贬，说好听点可以经邦济世，不好听点那就是拿着法律糊弄 人，何况后面一种说法听着也更实在。这也反映了社会本身对于法律人是以一种特殊的眼光去看待的。还有一例，前两天我一直去学校正门口的一个饭馆吃饭，渐渐 的也跟老板混熟了，知道我是学法律的。那日我刚进去，一瞅人还不少，老板见了我立即大声招呼：“法官今天吃点啥？”照理说一句玩笑语倒也没什么，只是说出 去之后食客接连扫来敬畏、疑惑、不屑的目光，闹得本人心里只发慌。事后感慨：法律人啊法律人，还没入行人家已经对你寄以厚望了！　
　　的确，老板的这句“法官今天吃点啥”看似平淡无奇，实则寄托了民众对于社会公正的一种向往，这对于还没毕业的学生来说更是言语之中赋予了一种责 任。假设真的是个法官去那儿吃饭，老板不一定会喊“法官今天吃点啥？”，最多只是尽心招待罢了。这从另一个层面上反映了法律职业群体的严肃性，所以饭馆老 板不能直接对法官大呼小叫，只好拿“将来的法官”开涮了。　但是， 现在的学生往往本身有法律的学识， 但是却没有去利用它的胆量。
　　说了这么多，其实还是逃不开两个问题：体制与角色。落实到自身问题上即我们处于当前的这样一个法律体制与人才培养机制下，同时又扮演着学生与 “公众期待的法律人”这样一个角色，难免会遇到谁靠谁，谁为谁服务的问题。民众当然希望我们为大众服务，这也是我们义不容辞的责任。但同时作为学生也要承 认，在当今的社会“安身立命”已非易事，再做一个优秀的法律人就更困难了。因此有不少法学院毕业的学生最后都另谋出路，离开这块“是非之地”，对这些人来 说，法律并非他们所憧憬的法律，法学院也并非他们所憧憬的法学院。到头来最大的收获，对法律来说只能是“门外的窥探者”、投机分子。　法学院并不是一个犹如外表般公正严明， 个个都各怀鬼胎， 想尽办法怎么相互利用， 而达到自己所要的成果。
　　还有一种人，他们是法学院中的成绩佼佼者，学习刻苦非吾辈自己人所能及也。但他们将来也许并非法律界的精英。真正的精英往往首先要“精”，才能成为“英”。他们很可能不是巧擅言词之人，所以常常“满口正义而不知言它”。　
　　再一种就是吾辈了，整日迷茫于书斋与卧室之间，有人问起，则曰：“正在思考，勿扰”。偶尔羡慕学者的境界却不愿舍弃尘世繁华，偶尔羡慕尘世繁华 却又厌其太俗。于是深感：世上最难伺候的还是读书人，没用还难伺候，不如不伺候，使其吃些苦也好，自然少些酸腐之气。所谓酸腐之气，有高雅之士称其为“气 节”。以至于现在到底什么是什么，我也不清楚了。　
　　说完了角色说体制，法律人本就是一个牵涉是非的角色，他们在激烈的竞争正中执业，靠的不是法律，用的也不是法律，而是智慧和胆量。法律是他们操 作的对象而不是赖以生存的手段。这更坚定了我关于体制与人互相利用的论断：体制与人互相利用，由此产生了一大批人，并且是贵族化的人，名曰“法律人”，法 律人起初并不是贵族，只是因为他们掌握这一门特殊的技艺，而这种技艺的绝妙之处就在于法律人很聪明地造了一座围城，将整个世界关在里面而将自己留在外面， 并且他们拿着钥匙，自由出入。这样一来，法律人看似就完全的享有自由了。然而事实是否如此？他们其实受到了一种制约，这就是赋予他们社会角色的法律。法律 人本身受法律制约，并且法律人只受法律制约，这是法治社会的一大特色。与制度的相互利用成为了法官和律师们善用的伎俩，不要以为只有律师才耍小聪明，法官 也会，并且某种意义上他们用得更加光明正大。而由于法官的技艺获得了法律程序上的优先地位，因此也就产生了所谓“法律的尊严”，“尊严”本产于人，只是由 于某种需要，法律将其借用，并且一借不还。想要尊严吗？找法律吧！它将给你公正，你因此将会很有些尊严！我随便编的这段类似于古老训诫的话语更加深刻地说 明了法律的制度设计时刻在招揽人，作为其运作的动力。而我们国家，曾让这个机制停止运转了几千年。　
　　仔细再一想：法律，又能靠谁呢？　黑暗吞噬着我们但我们却浑然不知。

烦恼

人都是求【有】，有就是有烦恼。
最平淡的日子，心里最安定。
People always seek " to have", but " to have" is actually to have misery.
The most simple and ordinary life brings the most inner peace.

人生【有】太多的诱惑，亦真亦假亦幻，令人难以取舍。人活着不容易，【有】想要容易的心态，而要保持平淡的心境则更难。
分享一个故事：
　　慧的爱人是一名工作非常出色，为人稳重，受人敬重的男人，慧非常的爱他。经过几年恋爱，他们的感情如亲情，然而，她却发现他们的关系已经变得平淡无味，再也没有了昔日的浪漫情调。
　　爱人是个非常实际的人，而慧则生性浪漫。一天，她终于忍受不了这种平淡无味的生活，要求与他分开。
　　“为什么？”爱人听了非常震惊，不不知所措地问。
　　“我只是感到非常厌倦。”她不假思索地说，毫不顾及爱人的感受，没有任何理由。
　　那天夜里，爱人默默地静思了一晚。这让她更加失望，她想：“一个连自己的危机都感觉不到的男人，我能指望他什么？”
　　终于，他问她，“我怎么能够改变你的想法？”
　　她直视着他的眼睛，慢条斯理地说：“我想要一朵陡峭山崖上的花，可要得到它，你将献出生命，你愿意为我这样做吗？”
　　“我明天给你答复。”他伤心地说。
　　第二天早上醒来，她发现爱人不在了，只见饭桌上放着爱人写的一张字迹潦草的字条，上面写着：
　　亲爱的：
　　我不会为你采花，让我给你解释为什么。
　　你使用计算机时，总是不时把程序搞乱，每当这时，你就坐在屏幕前哭泣。我不得不动手恢复那些搞乱的程序，并为你擦去眼泪。
　　你总把钥匙忘在家里，我不得不跑回家为你开门。
　　你喜欢旅行，可你总是迷路，我不得不去领你回来。
　　你一累总是痉挛，我不得不为你按摩，缓解你的疼痛。
　　你呆在家里，我总会担心你会得孤独症。为了减轻你的无聊，我不得不不厌其烦地给你说笑话讲故事。
　　所以，亲爱的，除非我确信有人比我更爱你，我是不会去悬崖为你采花的，那会将你一个人留下……
　　她的眼泪落在字条上，弄污了上面的笔迹。
　　这就是我给你的答复，如果你认为我说的有道理，就请把门打开，因为我像每天一样，正拿着你喜欢的面包和新鲜牛奶站在外面。
　　她急忙打开门，只见他手里拿着每天的面包和牛奶，期待地站在那里，一副急切的表情。她忘记了她想得到的悬崖之花，充满爱意地一下扑进爱人的怀里。
　　看似平淡，却往往充满着不凡，也存在着坎坎坷坷，纤纤绊伴，充满着无奈与忧虑，但却真实而平易近人。优优的经历体现着现实社会中平淡生活中的不平常，使人由衷地为之感叹，感叹生活的不易，感叹生活的无奈。

面对平淡，得善于从生活中发现幸福，要善于从幸福中体味感动，保持一份平淡，保持一份平和，保持一份从容，那样，平淡的生活才会成为你最享受的生活。因为，平淡的生活才最真，生活就是平淡如水。
对自己的要求不要太高，搞到自己都无法去达成，间接也把对自己的要求引用在身边的人。烦恼就因此而出现，自己的要求对他人的要求，最后双方都喘不到气。
把自己的角色扮演好，这会是永恒的长跑。