Back
2021 MarsdenLR 3343
INDUSTRIAL COURT KUALA LUMPU
ZULKEFLEE ABDULLAH – Appellant
Versus
MALAYSIA AIRPORTS HOLDINGS BERHAD – Respondent
Award No: 416 of 2021 [Case No: 6/4-606/19]
Dismissal without proper investigation or evidence constitutes unjust termination under industrial law, necessitating compensation.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act 1967 – Section 20(3) – Dismissal – The court evaluates dismissal based on established misconduct and whether it constitutes just cause – The claimant was dismissed based on mere suspicion of misconduct without investigation – Fundamental principles require reasonable grounds and opportunities for defense before dismissal. (Paras 8, 11, 24, 34)
(B) Burden of Proof – The employer bears the burden of proof in dismissal cases, requiring convincing evidence of alleged misconduct. (Paras 14, 15)
(C) Just Cause – Mere suspicion and hearsay evidence do not justify dismissal. (Paras 25, 28)
(D) Remedy – Monetary compensation awarded due to lack of misconduct established against the claimant. (Paras 39, 48)
Facts of the case: Claimant was dismissed with immediate effect on alleged misconduct relating to arrest by MACC for corruption, without grounding in proper investigation.
Findings of Court: Dismissal deemed without just cause or excuse due to failure to provide evidence of misconduct.
Issues: Whether misconduct was established and if dismissal was warranted.
Ratio Decidendi: The law requires that dismissals be based on substantial evidence and due process; mere suspicion is insufficient.
Result: Claimant awarded RM519,557.40 as compensation.
Introduction
[1] This reference made under s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (hereinafter referred to as " IRA 1967") by The Honourable Minister of Human Resources to the Industrial Court for an award on 30 April 2019. The dispute is regarding the dismissal of Zulkeflee Abdullah (hereinafter referred to as "the claimant") by Malaysia Airports Holdings Berhad (hereinafter referred to as "the company") on 10 December 2018.
Brief Facts Of The Case
[2] The claimant commenced employment as Assistant Manager, Commercial Department in Malaysia Airports Berhad with effect from 31 October 1994. His monthly salary was RM2,000.00 per month. The claimant was confirmed in his position on 1 December 1995.
[3] Throughout the claimant's employment with the company, he was also transferred and promoted several times. His last position in the company before his dismissal was as Senior Manager, Commercial Services (Business Excellence) Grade 26 with a monthly salary of RM12,127.86.
[4] Vide letter dated 16 November 2018, the company issued a Show Cause letter to the claimant directing the claimant to submit his written explanation within seven working days on the following issues:
"Due to your above mentioned arrest on 7 August 2018 for offences under s 17(a) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 (Act 694), you have caused the company's image and reputation to be blemished since your arrest became news subject of the mass media with the company's name being mentioned as employer.
Your actions have also caused the company to lose confidence in your credibility and integrity as an employee."
[5] Vide letter dated 1 December 2018 the claimant replied to the above said show cause letter and explained as follows:
(a) That the arrest by Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission ("MACC") was related to an allegation lodged by Mr Hubert Ng from Diamoney Jewellery Holdings Sdn Bhd ("DJHSB") and the case is still under investigation.
(b) The claimant has given his full cooperation to MACC in their investigation.
(c) That the claimant has not been charged in any Court of law and he has not been found guilty.
(d) The accusation was a mere allegation subject to be proved by the accusing party.
(e) The claimant has been loyal to the company in his 24 years of employment and had acted in the best interest of the Company throughout his employment.
(f) The claimant avers that Mr Hubert Ng from DJHSB made the accusation against him and filed the complaint to MACC due to his dissatisfaction in a legal suit in Mahkamah Sesyen Kuala Lumpur whereby the company had sued and DJHSB was ordered by the Court to pay RM582,000.00 to the company. In the said case, the claimant was one of the witnesses for the company.
(g) The claimant also appealed to the company not to take any actions against him until or unless he was proven guilty.
[6] The company being dissatisfied with the claimant's explanation, issued a letter dated 10 December 2018 to the claimant that he was dismissed from the services of the company with immediate effect. The letter is as follows:
"Disciplinary Action
We refer to the Show Cause Letter dated 16 November 2018 and your explanation dated 1 December 2018.
After thorough investigation and deliberation, the company found that you have caused the company's image and reputation to be blemished since your arrest became news subject of the mass media with the company's name being mentioned as employer.
Your arrest by MACC under s 17(a) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 (Act 694), have also caused the company to lose trust & confidence in your credibility & integrity as an employee and the company is unable to depose any further trust & confidence for you to continue to serve the company.
The company views this matter seriously and have decided to impose upon you the punishment of DISMISSAL with immediate effect.
You are required to surrender any company's properties that are in your possession which includes
