The court affirmed that an employer must prove just cause for dismissal, demonstrating that the employee was warned and given sufficient opportunity to improve performance, which was not met in this case.

Reference

[1] This is a reference made under s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (Act 177), arising out of the dismissal of Tengku Yusri Bin Tengku Yaacob (hereinafter referred to as "the Claimant") by Malayan Banking Berhad (Maybank) (hereinafter referred to as "the Bank") on 22 July 2021.

[2] The reference by the Director General of Industrial Relations ("DGIR") in this case required the Court to hear and determine the Claimant's complaint of dismissal by the Bank on 22 July 2021.

I. Procedural History

[3] The Court received the letter pertaining to the DGIR's reference under s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 on 13 June 2022.

[4] The matter was fixed for mention on 14 July 2022, 1 September 2022 and 19 September 2022.

[5] The trial proceeded on 2 May 2023 and concluded on 28 July 2023.

II. Factual Background

[6] The Claimant commenced employment with the Bank on 17 September 2001 as a Finance Executive (Grade 50). He was subsequently absorbed into permanent employment effective 17 September 2002.

[7] On 1 April 2014, the Claimant was promoted to the position of a Relationship Manager (Benefit Grade 51) at the Bank's Wakaf Siku branch. As a Relationship Manager, the Claimant's tasks and responsibilities were, inter alia:

i. meeting the needs of affluent customers with an investable asset of RM250,000.00 by providing a complete range of on-shore products and service offerings to meet their needs;

ii. developing new businesses, selling the Bank's products and third party products and services, building relationship with customers; and

iii. managing the operations and activities of the Private Wealth Centre (PWC) and promoting teamwork and overall development.

[8] On 27 March 2018, the Claimant was notified that his performance was below the minimum expectation of the Bank as a result of his poor performance rating for the Financial Year 2017 ("FY17'). The Claimant was rated as "Not Met" for his work performance because of his failure and/or inability to achieve the assigned duties up to the minimum expectation of the Bank. As a result, he was placed under a Consequence Management Performance Improvement Program ("CM Program").

[9] A CM Program in essence refers to a process of managing an employee's work performance when the employee is rated as "Not Met" or "Below Expectation".

[10] The Bank contends that the purpose of the CM Program is to assist a poorly performing employee to improve their performance level. It is not designed to punish an employee but instead designed to assist and create an environment where poorly performing employees are given an opportunity to discuss any difficulties or shortfalls in the performance of their duties with their line manager so as to ensure that they improve their work performance.

[11] Pursuant to the Bank's Consequence Management Internal Guidelines ("CM Guidelines"), the Bank only needs to carry out 3 performance reviews within a period of 6 months in determining if an employee has shown any improvement.

[12] Under the CM Program, the Claimant's performance was monitored and reviewed by his line managers, En Mohd Fauzolzakee Bin Mohamed Amin (COW-1) and En Zuraiddi bin Lazid (COW-2) on a bi-monthly basis between April 2018 to July 2020 (2 years and 3 months). The monitoring and reviewing were carried out pursuant