Latest news with #employmentrights
Free Malaysia Today
19 hours ago
- Business
- Free Malaysia Today
74 Bangladeshi workers win RM1.5mil in claims over unpaid wages
A file pic showing a workers' dormitory. The 74 workers claimed they were left stranded in Malaysia with no work or wages and had to endure poor living conditions. (Bernama pic) PETALING JAYA : A group of Bangladeshi workers has won more than RM1.5 million in claims from their former employer due to unpaid wages and other breaches of their employment contracts. The Kuala Lumpur labour office had ordered Meranti Binamas Sdn Bhd to pay RM1.54 million to the 74 workers, who had lodged complaints through migrant rights group Tenaganita. In a statement, Tenaganita official Abdul Aziz Ismail said this was a 'significant payout' and a major win for migrant rights which showed that employers could be held accountable for breaching the rights of foreign workers. 'It has been a long road but we finally have a decision and an order from the labour office. By ordering Meranti Binamas to pay the amounts due, the labour department has sent a clear message that employers cannot exploit workers with impunity. 'This is a significant achievement for the workers and for Tenaganita. It sets yet another precedent that even large, seemingly untouchable companies can be held accountable when workers stand united and demand justice,' he said. Aziz urged the government to ensure the RM1.5 million is paid out in full quickly. It was reported that the workers paid up to RM25,000 each to secure jobs but were left stranded in Malaysia with no work or wages and enduring poor living conditions after arriving here. The workers had stayed in a crowded hostel in Pudu, KL, and went months without pay, with some said to have had suicidal thoughts. The labour department's order is separate from a case now before the Shah Alam High Court. In that suit, 33 workers are seeking RM1.71 million in damages, including the RM25,000 they each paid in fees to get to Malaysia and 18 months of wages they say they never received. They also want the court to declare them victims of job fraud and to bar the immigration department from detaining or deporting them until the case is disposed of. The suit names Meranti Binamas, the human resources ministry secretary-general, the immigration director-general, and the government as defendants. It was filed in March and is ongoing.
Khaleej Times
3 days ago
- Business
- Khaleej Times
Abu Dhabi: Employee who never joined work awarded Dh110,400 in unpaid wages
A company has been ordered to pay a man Dh110,400 in unpaid wages for four months and 18 days by an Abu Dhabi Labour Court (First Instance). The employee was hired but never allowed to begin work. The claimant had filed a lawsuit against the company, demanding payment of his delayed salary from November 11, 2024, to April 7, 2025. He claimed that he had signed a fixed-term contract with a basic salary of Dh7,200 and a total monthly package of Dh24,000. However, the company continuously delayed his start date, leaving him waiting without pay. A representative for the company appeared in court, submitted a legal response and documents, and requested the case be transferred to a relevant division for judgment. The court stated that 'it was clear from the wage report, the employment contract, and the supporting documents submitted through the case management system that the delay in starting work was due to the employer," according to local newspaper Emarat Al Youm. The court emphasised that under Federal Decree-Law No. (33) of 2021 regulating labour relations, employers are obligated to pay wages on time according to the systems approved by the Ministry of Human Resources and Emiratisation. Citing Article 912 of the Civil Transactions Law, the court ruled that wages are a worker's right and cannot be withheld without proof such as a written waiver or legal acknowledgment. The employer had argued the employee wasn't entitled to his salary because he 'did not report to duty and went on leave.' But the court found no evidence of a formal investigation into any absence, determining that the delay in employment was the company's fault. The employee admitted taking eight days off, which were deducted from the total, resulting in a payment for four months and 18 days.
Daily Mail
4 days ago
- Business
- Daily Mail
BREAKING NEWS Penalty rates and BREAKS could be on the chopping block under new work from home rules
Professionals working from home could be denied the right to take breaks or be paid penalty rates for weekends and public holidays if an employer group had its way. The Australian Industry Group, which represents 60,000 businesses employing a million workers, has asked the Fair Work Commission for permission to take away entitlements in exchange for allowing WFH privileges. The employer group had made the application to vary the clerks award, covering administration support staff. It has confirmed it has been participating in confidential discussions with the workplace umpire. 'It would be highly inappropriate for any party to comment on or otherwise disclose the content of discussions or developments that have occurred in the context of those proceedings,' a spokeswoman told Daily Mail Austrtalia. 'To do so would be a clear and deliberate breach of faith.' AI Group chief executive Innes Willox argued he supported work from home, after former Liberal leader Peter Dutton lost the election with an aborted plan to force Canberra-based public servants back into the office. 'The last election demonstrated the importance people place on working from home, and we know that accommodating this, when they can, is also important to many employers,' he said. 'Sadly, some in the union movement seem determined to cling to the notoriously complex web of outdated workplace laws instead of constructively and cooperatively exploring how regulation of working arrangements can be genuinely modernised in a way that is both fair and flexible for all parties.' A little more than a third or 36 per cent of Australians are now working from home with Covid lockdowns normalising the practice.
BreakingNews.ie
5 days ago
- Business
- BreakingNews.ie
Bookmaker sharply criticised over 'deplorable' treatment of sacked worker
A leading bookmaker firm has been sharply criticised by an employment tribunal over its approach to an unfair dismissal case and its 'deplorable' treatment of a sacked worker. The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) said it was rare to encounter a case where there was 'such a complete repertoire of gross breaches of fair procedure and of a worker's rights.' Advertisement The WRC ruled that Bar One Racing had unfairly dismissed a service desk engineer, Liam Kyle, last January. Bar One Racing – which was founded in 1995 by businessman, Barney O'Hare – operates over 50 betting shops in Ireland and employs over 300 staff. WRC adjudication officer, Pat Brady, said the hearing of the case was 'somewhat extraordinary', largely due to the attitude of the company which he said demonstrated the 'most casual indifference' to the case. Mr Brady pointed out that Bar One Racing had made no written submission on the unfair dismissal claim. Advertisement He said two HR executives had attended the WRC hearing on behalf of the company but no witnesses relevant to the issue of Mr Kyle's dismissal. 'It was stated that one person might be available, hardly an acceptable approach to a tribunal,' said Mr Brady Bar One Racing accepted it had terminated Mr Kyle's employment but claimed issues had arisen about his attendance and punctuality. The company said it had recorded about 16 days of absence in total which it raised with Mr Kyle at a meeting in September 2024 which it denied was being held as a disciplinary hearing. Advertisement A second meeting was held in October 2024 and his employment was terminated at a final meeting in January 2025. Mr Kyle told the WRC that there were no issues with his work which he described as 'good.' However, he said he noticed a few months after he became a full-time worker in October 2023 that his manager was reassigning work from other colleagues to him. Mr Kyle accepted he had taken some sick leave and was slightly late on a few occasions but denied that it was frequent. Advertisement He recalled having a few information meetings about such issues but said no warnings had ever been issued to him. Mr Kyle said he had not regarded the first meeting as a disciplinary hearing until he was handed a document to sign which was a record of his absences due to sick leave. He gave evidence that he signed the document under duress as he was told that his employment could be terminated if he refused. He was also not permitted to retain a copy of it. In his ruling, Mr Brady said there was 'complete confusion' about the three meetings which Bar One Racing relied on for its defence of the case. Advertisement The WRC official noted the company had not made available any record of the first meeting or its outcome. He observed that Bar One Racing claimed Mr Kyle had been given a warning at the meeting in October 2024 but that the complainant was confused as he only remembered being handed a document about his sick leave absences. Mr Brady said Mr Kyle was not permitted to check the document and forced under duress to sign it In what he described as 'a bizarre twist', Mr Brady said the company claimed Mr Kyle was shown the letter of warning on which reliance was subsequently placed three months later when it terminated his employment. Mr Brady said it was unclear whether it was the same document but he said the failure of Bar Racing One to give Mr Kyle a copy was 'fatal.' The WRC said he drew obvious conclusions from the company apparently not considering it necessary to submit any other relevant documentation. Mr Brady said it explained Mr Kyle's belief that he had never been given a warning because he had never been given a copy of the warning. 'It seems probable that no such warning was given on the date claimed,' said Mr Brady. Ireland Government signs new sonar contract to enhance mar... Read More He added: 'Whatever way you may look at it, this meeting represented a gross violation of fair procedure requirements and of the complainant's rights to a transparent process.' The WRC said Mr Kyle had not been given any adequate notice of the disciplinary meeting, the nature of it, the right to be accompanied to it or the possible outcomes Mr Brady said the meeting in January was 'another masterclass in how not to convene a disciplinary meeting' as well as relying on a letter of warning allegedly issued the previous October. The WRC ordered Bar One Racing to pay Mr Kyle compensation of €2,700 – the equivalent of five week's pay – after hearing evidence that he had obtained alternative employment in that period.
The Independent
09-06-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
School loses Supreme Court bid over Christian staff member sacked for LGBT posts
A school in a years-long legal battle involving a staff member who was sacked after sharing social media posts about LGBT+ relationships teaching cannot take the case to the Supreme Court, justices have ruled. Kristie Higgs, a Christian mother of two, was sacked from her role at Farmor's School in Fairford, Gloucestershire, in 2019 for sharing Facebook posts criticising teaching about LGBT+ relationships in schools. In February, she won a Court of Appeal battle related to her dismissal, with three senior judges finding that the decision to sack her for gross misconduct was 'unlawfully discriminatory' and 'unquestionably a disproportionate response'. The school sought to appeal against the ruling at the Supreme Court in March, but three justices refused to give the school the green light to challenge the decision in the UK's highest court. In a decision on Thursday, which was published on Monday, Lord Reed, Lord Hamblen, and Lady Simler said that the school had asked for the go-ahead to appeal against the ruling on four grounds. But they said that the Supreme Court 'does not have jurisdiction' to hear three of the grounds, and the fourth 'does not raise an arguable question of law'. In response to the decision, Mrs Higgs said: 'I am relieved and grateful to the Supreme Court for this common-sense decision. ' Christians have the right to express their beliefs on social media and at other non-work-related settings without fear of being punished by their employer.' Andrea Williams, chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre – which supported Mrs Higgs' case, said: 'We welcome the Supreme Court's decision, which brings a decisive closure to this extraordinary case.' She continued: 'The Court of Appeal confirmed, loud and clear, that ideological censorship in the workplace, particularly against sincerely held Christian convictions, is illegal. 'This latest decision from the Supreme Court is further proof that our tireless work at the Christian Legal Centre, in defending so many Christian freedoms cases, has not been in vain.' Mrs Higgs, who worked as a pastoral administrator and work experience manager at the school, shared two posts on a private page under her maiden name in October 2018 to about 100 friends, which raised concerns about relationship education at her son's Church of England primary school. She either copied and pasted from another source or reposted the content, adding her own reference in one post to 'brainwashing our children'. Pupils were to learn about the No Outsiders In Our School programme, a series of books that teach the Equality Act in primary schools. An employment tribunal found in 2020 that while Mrs Higgs' religion was a protected characteristic, her dismissal was lawful, but this decision was overturned by an Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in 2023. But the EAT ruled the case should be sent back to an employment tribunal for a fresh decision, which Mrs Higgs' lawyers challenged in the Court of Appeal as 'unnecessary'. In a judgment, Lord Justice Underhill, sitting with Lord Justice Bean and Lady Justice Falk, ruled in Mrs Higgs' favour in February, stating: 'The dismissal of an employee merely because they have expressed a religious or other protected belief to which the employer, or a third party with whom it wishes to protect its reputation, objects will constitute unlawful direct discrimination within the meaning of the Equality Act.'
