1.The Company's position in this case is that the three Claimants were dismissed with just cause because of their refusal to obey a specific instruction to go on temporary reassignment for a day to another department within the same factory they were employed in whereas the contractual position was and still is that the Claimants and other employees in the same category as the Claimants "have been and are still subject to reassignment by the Management".

2.The Union on the other hand denies that the Claimants were guilty of misconduct and contends that they were " not bound to obey orders to do something not properly appertaining to the character or capacity in which they were hired". The Union also contends that the Claimants were refused Union representative at the domestic inquiry and the Company was therefore in breach of the Collective Agreement.

3.The Company manufactures vehicular tyres and the Claimants were employed as process workers in the following capacities and particulars:

Claimant No. 1-Mohd.

Claimant No. 2-Mohd.

Claimant No. 3- Satiman bin Leman -joined on 18th June 1975 as a Millman, remained a Millman, and at time he was dismissed was earning $4,35 per h