Sembang Undang Undang bersama ASI
Isu - pemecatan pekerja cara Construction dismissal siri : 1
1- Mahkamah telah selalunya memutuskan dalam kes diatas bahawa penyamaran penurunan pangkat sebegitu merupakan pembuangan kerja konstruktif dan ia juga merupakan kemungkiran asas kontrak bagi pihak majikan yang menyebabkan pekerja meletak jawatan (Quah Swee Khoon v. Sime Darby Bhd; dirujuk). Dengan adanya fakta dan keterangan, tiada apa-apa yang tidak munasabah berkenaan keputusan Mahkamah Perusahaan.
2- PEMBUKTIAN
Di dalam kes Weltex Knitwear Industries Sdn.Bhd. v. Law Kar Toy & Anor [1998] 1 LN 258 Mahkamah Tinggi memutuskan bahawa (dalam bahasa asal ):
"The law is clear that if the fact of dismissal is not in disputes,the burden is on the company to satisfy the court that such dissmisal was done without, just couse or excuse. This is because, by the 1967 Act, all dismissal is prima facie done without just cause or excuse. Therefore, if an employer asserts otherwise, the burden is on him to discharge. However, where the fact of dismissal is in disputes, it is for the workman to establish that he was dismissed by his employer. If he fails, there is no anus whatsover on the employer to establish anything for in such a situasion no dismissal has taken place and the question of it being just cause or excuse would not at all arise (see : Wong Chee Hong v. Cathay Organisation (M) sdn. Bhd [1988 ] 1 CLJ 298(Rep; [1988] 1 CLJ 45 ; [1988] 1 MLJ 92 )."
3- UNDANG UNDANG
Dalam kes Mahkamah Rayuan Inggeris, Western Excavating (E.C.C) Ltd v Sharp [1978] 1 I.C.R.221 ("Western Excavating") Lord Denning M.R. memutuskan ujian yang tepat untuk digunapakai bagi menjelaskan terma pemecatan kerja konstruktif adalah ujian kontraktual. Selanjutnya di mukasurat 26 beliau mendefinasikan ujian kontraktual sebagai (petikan bahasa asal);
" ... If the employer is guilty of conduct which is a significant breach going to the root of the contract of employment, or which shows that the employer no longer intends to be bound by one or more of the essential terms of the contract, then the employee is entitled to treat himself as discharged from any further performance. If he does so, then he terminates the contract by reason of the employer's conduct. He is constructively dismissed. The employee is entitled in those circumstances to leave at the instant without giving any notice at all or, alternatively, he may give notice and say that he is leaving at the end of the notice. But the conduct must in either case be sufficiently serious to entitle him to leave at once. Moreover, he must make up his mind soon after the conduct of which he complains, for if he continues for any length of time without leaving, he will lose his right to treat himself asdischarged. He will be regarded as having elected to affirm the contract.". (penekanan ditambah).
4- Mahkamah Agung Malaysia telah menjelaskan undang-undang berkaitan dengan pemecatan kerja konstruktif di dalam kes Wong Chee Hong v Cathay Organisation (M) Sdn. Bhd. [1988] 1 CLJ (Rep) 298 ("Wong Chee Hong"). Dalam kes ini, Salleh Abas KHN, mengguna pakai prinsip yang diperturunkan oleh Lord Dening M.R. dalam Western Excavating memutuskan sedemikian (petikan bahasa asal):
"The common law has always recognized the right of an employee to terminate his contract of service and therefore to consider himself as discharged from further obligations if the employer is guilty of such breach as affects the foundation of the contract or if the employer has evinced or shown an intention not to be bound by it any longer. It was an attempt to enlarge the right of the employee of unilateral termination of his contract beyond the perimeter of the common law by an unreasonable conduct of his employer that the expression "constructive dismissal" was used.".
5- Dalam kes Quah Swee Khoon v Sime Darby Bhd. [2001] 1 CLJ 9 , Mahkamah Rayuan juga mengguna pakai Wong Chee Hong dan menyebut di muka surat 21 seperti berikut (petikan bahasa asal):
"Turning once again to the pleadings, it is abundantly clear that the appellant was complaining that he had been driven out of employment whereas the respondent was contending that the former had left of his own volition. Whether one would describe the conduct complained of as amounting to constructive dismissal or the breach of the implied term governing mutual trust and confidence is really a matter of semantics. Nothing turns upon it. At the end of the day, the question simply is whether the appellant was driven out of employment or left it voluntarily.".
6- buang Kerja Secara Tidak Adil" atau di dalam bahasa undang-undang (english) disebut "unjust dismissal".
7- Unjust dismissal berlaku apabila seorang majikan memberhentikan perkhidmatan pekerjanya tanpa alasan yang munasabah atau bertindak secara mala fide (bad faith) sehingga menyebabkan pekerjanya berada di dalam dilema dan berhenti dengan sendirinya. Senario unjust dismissal ini berlaku dalam pelbagai keadaan. Di antara keadaan yang saya maksudkan termasuklah..
a) Menukarkan lokasi tempat kerja pekerja dengan niat menyusahkan pekerja..
b) Meletakkan pekerja di dalam situasi "cold storage" ( tidak dipecat tetapi tidak diberikan kerja untuk dilakukan)
c) Menahan kenaikan bonus kontraktual pekerja
d) Menarik salah satu atau semua faedah pekerjaan yang dipersetujui oleh kedua-dua belah pihak.
e) Gagal mencarum kepada dana amanah pekerja seperti KWSP, SOCSO..
f) Gagal menyediakan persekitaran kerja selamat kepada pekerja
Pekerja seharusnya tahu bagaimana caranya untuk "mengajar" majikan sebegini. Jika berkesempatan saya mencadangkan supaya anda membaca laporan Industrial Law Reports. Di dalam laporan tersebut, mahkamah perusahaan biasa mengawardkan sehingga 24 bulan gaji kepada pekerja yang teraniaya.
Insyaallah, kita akan berbincang dengan lebih lanjut selepas ini.
