Keputusan untuk perbicaraan pada 20hb Oktober lalu telah diterima dan ia memihak kepada ABBOA!
Pihak Bank telah diarahkan oleh Mahkamah untuk mengeluarkan Statement of Reply (Counter Proposal) sebelum 8hb Disember 2010.
Untuk membaca keseluruhan Court Award tersebut sila ke link di bawah
Berikut kami paparkan keputusan yang telah di buat oleh Y.A Dato' Mary Shakila G. Azariah, Chairman Industrial Court Malaysia
Decision
Having heard both the submissions and arguments of the Union's and Respondent's Solicitors the Court in agreement with its panel members have reached this conclusion. We have perused the Statement of Case dated 13 August 2010 and its supporting Bundle of Documents. We are of the view that it is in ( 7 ) 27/2-593/09 compliance with Rule 9(3). We have compared the said Statement of Case filed by the Union with other samples of Statement of Case filed in the past in Court by other Unions. The Court has noted that they were very similar with the form the Statement of Case that has been filed by the Union in the given case. The Court also notes that with regards to these Statement of Case there were no objections raised by the Respondent's Solicitors that they did not comply with Rule 9(3) and neither were they rejected by the Court for non-compliance with the said rule. In recent years the Court has not experienced such objections being raised at the preliminary stages of the proceedings. These Statements of Case that were filed must have been found to be in order and in compliance with Rule 9(3). It is our considered view that the Statement of Case that has been filed has stated enough and it is now over to the Respondent to reply to the same. The cases that the Respondent's Solicitors refers can be distinguished on their facts. Moreover the Court decides this case based on its peculiar facts. The Bundle of Documents filed in support throws light on the justification that may be anticipated by the Respondent and the Court for the clauses the Union has ( 8 ) 27/2-593/09 proposed. It is enough for the the Respondent to respond to. Pursuant to Section 29(g) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 the Court will also direct the Respondent to identify and list each and every article it disputes with its accompanying reasons or justifications for disagreeing. It has been succinctly put by the Learned Chairman Y.A. Tuan Franklin Goonting that disagreements for the mere sake of disagreeing will not be countenanced. The Court accordingly rule that the Respondent is required to file its Statement in Reply and the said list and have the same served on the Union's Solicitors within one month from the date hereof. This case shall be fixed for further mention on 29 November 2010 so as to ensure that all pleadings and documents are in before the Hearing that has been fixed for 28 January 2011 and 31 January 2011. The Court regrets that much time has been squandered by the prolonged inability of the parties to resolve this issues amicably.
HANDED DOWN AND DATED THIS 8 DAY OF NOVEMBER 2010
Signed
( DATO’ MARY SHAKILA G. AZARIAH )
CHAIRMAN
INDUSTRIAL COURT, MALAYSIA
KUALA LUMPUR
( 9 ) 27/2-593/09
