Employment termination can occur for various reasons, but under Section 20 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967, the legal term used is “dismissal.” As established in the case of Colgate Palmolive Sdn. Bhd. v. Yap Kok Foong [1998] 2 ILR 965 (Award No. 368 of 1998):
“In a section 20 reference, a workman’s complaint consists of two elements: firstly, that he has been dismissed, and secondly that such dismissal was without just cause or excuse. As to the first element, industrial jurisprudence as developed in the course of industrial adjudication readily recognizes that any act which has the effect of bringing the employment contract to an end is a ‘dismissal’ within the meaning of section 20. The terminology used and the means resorted to by an employer are of little significance; thus, contractual terminations, constructive dismissals, non-renewals of contract, forced resignations, retrenchments and retirements are all species of the same genes, which is ‘dismissal’.”
When a dismissal is challenged in the Industrial Court, the burden of proof generally falls on the employer to justify that the termination was carried out with just cause or excuse, except in cases of constructive dismissal and forced resignation, where the burden shifts to the employee. This two-day training program is designed to provide participants with a
comprehensive understanding of termination laws and best practices. Participants will analyze key legal precedents from Industrial Court, High Court, Court of Appeal, and Federal Court decisions to understand the burden of proof and employer obligations in various termination scenarios.
The program will equip HR professionals, managers, and decision-makers with the necessary knowledge and strategies to ensure compliance with legal requirements while safeguarding the organization from potential legal consequences arising from wrongful terminations.