An employer must provide just cause for terminating a probationer's employment, and failure to do so renders the dismissal unjust.

AWARD

Pravin Kaur Jessy:

Reference

[1] This is a reference pursuant to s 20 (3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 ("The Act") arising out of the alleged dismissal of Tan Man How ("Claimant") by Innobim Consultancy Sdn Bhd ("Company") on the 24 March 2023.

[2] The Director General of Industrial Relation's reference in this case requires the Court to hear and determine the Claimant's complaint of dismissal by the Company on 24 March 2023.

[3] Both the Claimant and the Company were unrepresented by legal counsel during the hearing.

[4] In reaching this decision, the Court has carefully examined and analysed the notes of proceedings, all relevant documents and the cause papers submitted in this case, including the:

(i) Statement of Case dated 2 November 2023;

(ii) Statement in Reply which is undated;

(iii) Rejoinder dated 17 December 2024;

(iv) Claimant's Bundle of Documents - CLB1;

(v) Company's Bundle of Documents - COB1-COB5;

(vi) Claimant's Witness Statement - CLWS-1;

(vii) Company's Witness Statement - COWS-1;

(viii) Claimant's Written Submission and Reply; and

(ix) Company's Written Submission.

Facts Of The Case

[5] The matter in dispute before this Court concerns the termination of the Claimant's employment midway during his probationary period by the Company on 24 March 2023.

[6] By way of a Letter of Offer - Sales Execute dated 16 December 2022, Claimant was offered employment as a Sales Executive in the Company's Sales Division commencing from 3 January 2023.

[7] Pursuant to cl 2 of the Letter of Offer, Claimant was required to undergo a six (6) months probationary period from the date he commenced employment. The said clause further stipulated that the Claimant's employment could be terminated with immediate effect during the probationary period if his performance did not meet the Company's expectations.

[8] On 3 January 2023, Claimant commenced employment with the Company.

[9] By a letter dated 24 March 2023, Claimant's services were terminated with immediate effect by the Company by reason of "With reference to your performance during your probationary period, the management have decided that your overall performance does not meet our expectations despite the opportunities give to you during this time".

Claimant's Case

[10] Claimant averred at para 2 of the Claimant's Statement of Case (hereinafter referred to as SOC) that he was dismissed by the Company on 24 March 2023 and that his dismissal was without just cause and excuse.

[11] Pursuant to para 3 of the SOC, the Claimant asserts that he commenced employment with the Company on 3 January 2023 as a Sales Executive, with a basic monthly salary of RM4,200.00. The Claimant was placed on a probationary period of six months.

[12] Claimant further pleaded that the Company deals in a tough industry of software sales where it is only a vendor among many other authorised to sell mainly software from Adobe and Autocad.

[13] Claimant pleaded at paras 5 and 6 of the SOC that he was verbally and psychologically abused by the Company's management and he never received any warnings or show cause letters before his termination.

[14] In his Rejoinder, Claimant admitted at para 10 that as a sales personnel, the main result would be the sales figures but sales cannot materialise in a vacuum and the Company would have to prove that they had provided the Claimant everything reasonable so sales can be achieved.

[15] Claimant further pleaded in paras 11-14 of the Rejoinder that he was subjected to various restrictions in doing sales, he had secured leads with huge revenue which would have materialised in time and finally that he had provided daily reports confirming the number of calls made and quotations sent out.

[16] At para 15 of the Rejoinder, Claimant pleaded that he viewed the accusations of lateness as nitpicking and an afterthought. He admitted that on many instances of lateness it was just a few minutes and it was due to the fact that he had forgotten to punch in or he could not access the punch