What Ismail Nasaruddin v MAS Means For You
The case protecting a worker dismissed over lawful trade union activity.
What The Case Decided
Ismail Nasaruddin Abdul Wahab v Malaysian Airline System Bhd, a Federal Court decision from 2021 reported at [2021] 4 MLJ 724, concerns a union president’s dismissal.
The court confirmed the law protects legitimate trade union activity.
It held that under Section 20 the onus is on the employer to establish that the dismissal was with just cause and excuse, not for the worker to prove the dismissal was unfair 1.
What The Principle Means Plainly
You cannot lawfully be dismissed simply for taking part in protected trade union activity.
The burden of justifying any dismissal, in this context or otherwise, always sits with the employer.
This is a recent, high level restatement of a principle that runs through the whole Section 20 framework.
What It Means For A Worker
If your dismissal followed union involvement, a complaint, or similar protected activity, this case supports scrutinising the employer’s stated reason closely.
Keep a record of your union or protected activity and the timeline of events leading to your dismissal.
The closer in time the dismissal followed that activity, the more relevant this case becomes to your claim.
Where This Fits In A Claim
This case reinforces the burden of proof in every unfair dismissal claim heard at the Industrial Court.
Your own outcome will always turn on the specific facts of your case, and no result here is promised.
The sixty day window to act under Section 20 still applies, so checking the deadline calculator early is worthwhile.
If you suspect your dismissal followed lawful union activity or a related protected action, it helps to walk through the sequence of events with someone who can weigh it against this case.
Common questions
What did Ismail Nasaruddin v MAS decide?
The Federal Court, considering the dismissal of a union president, confirmed that the law protects legitimate trade union activity. Under Section 20, the onus is on the employer to prove the dismissal had just cause and excuse.
Do I have to prove my dismissal was unfair?
No, this case reaffirms that the burden sits with your employer throughout. You do not carry the responsibility of proving unfairness, though presenting your own evidence still strengthens your position.
Does this only apply to union leaders?
The case involved a union president, but the underlying principle about legitimate trade union activity being protected applies more broadly to workers engaged in lawful union activities.
Sources
- The law protects legitimate trade union activity, and under Section 20 the onus is on the employer to establish that the dismissal was with just cause and excuse, not for the worker to prove it was unfair. CCS & Co
Keep reading
If you suspect your dismissal followed lawful union activity or a related protected action, it helps to walk through the sequence of events with someone who can weigh it against this case.