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 hour averaging $848.25 per month.

4.The facts of the Company's case are as follows:

5.On July 6, 1985, department supervisor Lee Swee Seng found that the 8 x 10" Extruder department was short of five men as a result of absenteeism.

6.Gian Singh was given the instruction to shut off the 3 Roll Calender after finishing the last job on schedule.

7.However, when CW.1 checked about 40 minutes later, he found that the three men did not go to the 8 x 10" Extruder machine.

8.Gian Singh reported to Syed Abdullah - CW.2 - of the situation.

9.After the report form the foreman of the Extruder department that they could not run the machine, Syed Abdullah instructed Gian Singh to call the three men to his office.

10.It was also recorded that following this, about 80 workers walked out of their working place and stood outside the factory building presumably as a concerted act of protest.

11.A domestic inquiry was held on the three Claimants conduct on 10th July 1985 after which they were dismissed with effect from 20th July 1985.

12.The facts described above were either confirmed or not convincingly rebutted in the Union's case which relied more on arguments on principles rather than on the facts of the case.

13.In this instant case the Company emphasised its contractual right to manage the factory, to transfer and to determine the efficient utilisation of the work force.

''ARTICLE 7 - RIGHTS OF THE

COMPANY

The Union recognises the right of the Company to operate and manage its business in all respects, and in particular, without derogating from the generality of the foregoing, to determine the numbers and development of the workforce and the content of jobs, to establish rules and regulations on operations and safety, to determine the efficient utillisation of the workforce, tools and equipment, the means, methods, processes, materials, procedures and schedules of production, to engage, promote, retrench, transfer, discharge, suspend or otherwise discipline any employee for cause subject to the provisions of any law for the time being in force.

14.If the sole issue in this case is whether the Company had the contractual right to transfer the three Claimants on temporary assignments this Court would not go any further into this case and would straightaway uphold the dismissals.

15.The Union argued that the order to transfer even if admitted to be lawful was unreasonable because the work the Claimants were asked to do was new to them and for which they had not been trained.

16.Claimant No. 1 said in evidence:

"I have worked in the 8 x 10" Extruder department twice before.

17.Claimant No. 2, a Windup Man, testified:

"Gian Singh - CW.1 - instructed me to work as a Booker in the 8 x 10" Extruder department. I refused to go because I had never worked there before ........