The employer must demonstrate that a probationary employee's dismissal is justified based on documented unsatisfactory performance, without the need for formal warnings.

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 Zun-Nasri Bin Kasim (hereinafter referred to as "the Claimant") by Malaysia Land Properties Sdn Bhd (hereinafter referred to as "the Company") on 1 March 2023.

[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 Company on 1 March 2023.

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 2 June 2024.

[4] The matter was fixed for mention on 31 January 2024, 20 March 2024 and 14 October 2024.

[5] The trial proceeded on 11 April 2025.

II. Factual Background

[6] The Company is the owner and manages a shopping complex known as Hartamas Shopping Centre ("the Mall").

[7] The Claimant commenced employment with the Company as the Mall Manager effective from 22 August 2022 vide Letter of Employment dated 15 August 2022 with a basic monthly salary of RM8,500.00.

[8] The Claimant was subjected to 6 months' probation period and his position will only be confirmed in writing. The Claimant's performance will be evaluated by the Company during his probation period and his confirmation was purely dependent upon the satisfactory performance of his duties during the probation period.

[9] During the probation period, the Company had noticed that the Claimant's work performance had been poor.

[10] On 6 October 2022, the Claimant's performance was appraised vide an Interim Probation Appraisal by one Ms Loh Pooi Ling ("Ms Pel Loh'). During the said appraisal, the Claimant's performance was evaluated in detail with corresponding factors and assessment scores.

[11] In the said appraisal, the Claimant merely scored 33 points, which was below the minimum 50 points. When the Claimant was asked to give his comments on the appraisal and acknowledge receipt of the said probation appraisal, the Claimant merely stated "NOT AGREE" without stating any comments or seeking any clarifications. The Company contends that this clearly showed the Claimant's act of disobedience and/or defiance.

[12] As the Claimant's performance was poor and not up to the Company's expectation, he was warned about his poor performance vide letter dated 26 October 2022. The Claimant was advised and/or given the opportunity to improve his performance.

[13] The Company also issued a show cause letter dated 17 October 2022 as the Claimant was found to be in dereliction of his duties and responsibilities, namely the Claimant mismanaged the Mall's tenant issues. The Claimant replied to this show cause letter on 19 October 2022, which the Company however found to be unacceptable as he failed to address or give a proper explanation for the issues that had transpired. Hence, the Claimant was issued with another warning letter dated 27 October 2022.

[14] On 1 December 2022, the Claimant's performance was again appraised vide an Interim Probation Appraisal by Ms Pel Loh. Vide the said performance appraisal, the Claimant's performance was evaluated in detail with corresponding factors and assessment scores. In the said appraisal, the Claimant merely scored 46 points, which was below the minimum 50 points. When the Claimant was asked to