Back
2020 MarsdenLR 3130
INDUSTRIAL COURT KUALA LUMPUR
IZZAT KHURSHAHID FATHOL KARIB – Appellant
Versus
TOYOTA TSUSHO (M) SDN BHD – Respondent
Award No: 469 Of 2020 [Case No: 4/4-538/19]
Dismissal for fighting at work constitutes serious misconduct justifying termination, provided proper procedures are followed.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act 1967 – Section 20 – Dismissal of employee – Claimant dismissed for misconduct of fighting with colleague – Claimant admitted his misconduct during Domestic Inquiry – Court upheld dismissal as with just cause as company followed proper procedures and rules of natural justice. (Paras 3-36)
(B)
Burden of Proof – The company must prove just cause for dismissal of the employee based on misconduct committed. (Paras 11-12)
(C)
Standard of Proof – Applicable standard in dismissal cases is on the balance of probabilities. (Paras 13-13)
Facts of the case:
The claimant, an employee of the company, was dismissed following an incident where he assaulted a colleague resulting in injuries. He admitted to the misconduct during the inquiry conducted by the company.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the company had proven the misconduct and the dismissal was justified as per the company's rules.
Issues
: Whether the dismissal was without just cause and whether procedural fairness was followed.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that fighting at the workplace is a serious breach that justifies dismissal, and the company's procedures were fair.
Result:
Claimant's claim dismissed.
[1] The parties in this matter filed their respective written submissions dated 21 November 2019 (company's Written Submissions), 21 November 2019 (claimant's Written Submissions), 3 December 2019 (company's Written Submissions in Reply) and 4 December 2019 (claimant's Written Submission in Reply).
[2] This court considered all the notes of proceedings in this matter, documents and the cause papers in handing down this Award namely:
(i) The claimant's Statement of Case dated 28 June 2019;
(ii) The company's Statement in Reply dated 26 July 2019;
(iii) The claimant's Rejoinder dated 29 July 2019;
(iv) The claimant's Bundle of Documents - CLB;
(v) The company's Bundle of Documents - COB;
(vi) Claimant's Witness Statement - CLW1-WS;
(vii) Company's Witness Statement - COW1-WS (Chiong Mun Wai);
(viii) Company's Witness Statement - COW2-WS (Mohd Rakib bin Mohd Kamal);
(ix) Company's Witness Statement - COW3-WS (Zainal Azmi bin Tukimin);
(x) Company's Witness Statement - COW4-WS (Brian Liang);
(xi) Company's Witness Statement - COW5-WS (Yang Lay Keng); and
(xii) Company's Witness Statement - COW6-WS (Ahmad Akmal Husny bin Ahmad Shukur).
Introduction
[3] The dispute before this court is the claim by Izzat Khurshahid bin Fathol Karib (the claimant) that he had been dismissed without just cause or excuse by Toyota Tsusho (M) Sdn Bhd (the company) on the 15 October 2018.
[4] The claimant commenced employment with the company as Quality Assurance Executive (P3) in a department called Global Parts Department effective 1 July 2014 with a basic salary of RM2,450. With effect from 1 April 2018 the claimant was promoted to Executive (P2) level in the company. The claimant's last drawn salary was RM3,505 with a fixed car allowance of RM400 per month. The claimant was placed in the company's warehouse at its branch in Bukit Raja, Klang, Selangor. As part of the claimant job functions, he was required to work closely with the employees of one entity known as Total Logistic Services (M) Sdn Bhd (TLS) which entity is a logistics solutions provider. TLS utilizes a part of the company's premises at the Bukit Raja branch for its business activities and for the purposes of using it as a warehouse.
[5] On the 26 September 2018 at about 11.00 in the morning there was a reported incident of misunderstanding in the course of employment involving the claimant and an employee of TLS in the warehouse wherein the claimant had been alleged to have physically attacked the employee of TLS in the warehouse. The alleged assault on the employee of TLS was as a result of a misunderstanding that arose when the said employee of TLS did not follow the instruction given by the claimant to remove certain parts from the Quarantine Area of the warehouse. As a result of the alleged attack on the employee of TLS that resulted in the said employee of TLS sustaining bruises and scratches, the said employee of TLS caused the lodging of a report to the company. An investigation ensued that subsequently resulted in the company issuing the claimant a show cause letter dated 26 September 2018. The claimant replied to the show cause letter on the 27 September 2018 expressing regrets for the incident, further apologized and was prepared to take full responsibilities and accept the consequences of his action. Thereafter the company conducted a Domestic Inquiry (DI) on the 5 October 2018 in which DI two charges of misconduct were levelled against the claimant for him to answer. In the DI, the claimant admitted to the two charges of misconducts levelled against him. The Panel of Inquiry then found the claimant guilty of the two charges levelled against him and found that the misconducts were major misconducts. The findings of the Panel of Inquiry was then submitted to the company wherein in view of the seriousness of the misconducts of the claimant, the company decided to dismiss the claimant from his employment on the 15 October 2018. The claimant now claims that the dismissal f
