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 (MAS) is a Federal Court decision from 2022 about a union president’s dismissal. It is reported in the Current Law Journal (CLJ) at [2022] 9 CLJ 801.
The court confirmed the law protects legitimate trade union activity.
Under Section 20, the onus is on the employer to establish just cause and excuse for the dismissal.1 The worker does not have to prove it was unfair.
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.
It is a recent restatement of a principle that runs through the whole Section 20 process.
What it means for a worker
If your dismissal followed union involvement, a complaint, or similar protected activity, this case supports a close look at your employer’s stated reason.
Keep a record of your union or protected activity, any union membership records and the timeline leading to your dismissal.
The closer in time the dismissal followed that activity, the more relevant this case becomes to your claim.
Also keep any message in which a manager or HR linked your union role to how you were treated at work.
Where this fits in a claim
This case reinforces the burden of proof in every unfair dismissal claim heard at the Industrial Court. That applies even when the reason you were given has nothing to do with union activity.
Your outcome depends on your own facts, and no result is promised.
The 60-day window under Section 20 still applies, so check the deadline calculator early.
If you suspect your dismissal followed lawful union activity, an independent employment lawyer can review the sequence of events. They can act on it if it is a case they can take on.
For people seeking legal representation. For general information, please use our guides and tools.
First contact: general facts only, such as date, location, employment status and a short summary. Keep documents private until an identified independent lawyer contacts you and specifically requests them.
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, an independent employment lawyer can review the sequence of events. They can act on it if it is a case they can take on.
For people seeking legal representation. For general information, please use our guides and tools.
First contact: general facts only, such as date, location, employment status and a short summary. Keep documents private until an identified independent lawyer contacts you and specifically requests them.