Employment Law 劳动法

Employment Law 劳动法

 

Employment law encompasses the legal framework governing the relationship between employers and employees. It covers a wide range of issues, including hiring, working conditions, wages, benefits, discrimination, termination, and workplace safety. The primary objective of employment law is to ensure fair treatment and protection for both employers and employees.

 

劳动法涵盖了雇主与雇员之间的法律框架。它涉及到许多问题,包括招聘、⼯作条件、⼯资、福利、歧视、终⽌以及⼯作场所安全等。劳动法确保保护雇主和雇员的权益,以打造⼀个安全且公平的⼯作环境。

 

Key Extracts from Employment Law 劳动法主要摘录


1.  Annual Leave (年假)

Employees are entitled to paid annual leave. In Malaysia, the minimum annual leave entitlement for employees in 2024 is based on their length of service:

        • Less than 2 years: 8 days for each year of service
        • 2–5 years: 12 days for each year of service
        • More than 5 years: 16 days for each year of service

员⼯有权享受带薪年假。在⻢来西亚,2024年员⼯的最低年假权利取决于他们的服务年限:

        • 服务不满2年, 每年8天
        • 2⾄5年:每年12天
        • 超过5年:每年16天

2.  Paternity Leave(陪产假)

The The Malaysian Employment Act 1955 (EA) imposes restrictions on employers, prohibiting the compulsion of employees to utilize annual leave for paternity reasons

⻢来西亚法令规定,雇主不得强迫员⼯因陪产理由利⽤年假。

3. Sick Leave(病假)

Employees are entitled to paid sick leave, capped at 60 days annually. Employees should provide evidence such as medical certificate.

员⼯拥有带薪病假,⼀年最多60天。但是员⼯需提供证明,如医⽣证明书。

 

Employment Law Related Case (劳动法实例)


Kesatuan Pekerja-Pekerja Lombong Emas Pahang v Specific Resources Sdn Bhd [2020] 1 ILJ 9

The dispute revolved around allegations made by the union against the Company regarding its non-compliance with Article 23 and Article 24 of the first collective agreement spanning from April 1, 2018, to March 31, 2021. Article 23 addressed the standard working hours, while Article 24 concerned overtime hours for the company’s employees. The union argued that the Company had failed to compensate its employees, particularly union members, for four hours of overtime work as stipulated in the collective agreement, instead paying them for only three hours. This discrepancy was deemed a violation of the agreement and the Company’s previous practices before March 16, 2018. The union contended that the Company’s actions were unilateral and against the employees’ interests. In response, the Company asserted that it had not breached the collective agreement and had adjusted its overtime payment practices in accordance with Article 23 and Article 24, effective from March 16, 2018. Despite the Company’s defense, the court ruled in favor of the union, ordering the Company to adhere to the collective agreement and compensate union members for four hours of overtime work from March 16, 2018, onwards.

⼯会指控公司未遵守第⼀份从2018年4⽉1⽇⾄2021年3⽉31⽇的集体协议书的第23条和第24条。其中第23条涉及标准⼯作时间,⽽第24条涉及公司员⼯的加班时间。⼯会主张公司未遵照集体协议书⾥的规定对其员⼯,进⾏四⼩时的加班⼯作补偿,⽽仅⽀付了他们三⼩时的⼯资。这种差异违反了协议。⼯会认为公司的⾏为是单⽅⾯,并且违反了协议书。作为回应,公司声称⾃2018年3⽉16⽇起已调整了加班⽀付做法,符合第23条和第24条的规定。尽管公司进⾏了辩护,但法院仍然裁定⽀持⼯会,命令公司遵守集体协议书,并从2018年3⽉16⽇起对⼯会成员进⾏四⼩时的加班⼯作补偿。

 

 

Compiled by: Ngu Ley Hau

Supervised by: George Ngui