The dismissal of an employee must be supported by just cause and proper procedures; failure to prove misconduct results in unjust dismissal.

AWARD

Selva Rani Thiyagarajan:

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 GUNNA A/L SHANMUGAM (hereinafter referred to as "the Claimant") by MALAYSIAN MILK SENDIRIAN BERHAD (hereinafter referred to as the Company") on 13 July 2022.

I) Procedural History

[2] The Reference, in this case, required the Court to hear and determine the Claimant's complaint of dismissal by the Company on 9 November 2021.

[3] The matter was fixed for mention on 15 August 2022, 13 March 2023, 5 April 2023, and 11 August 2023.

[4] The case was fixed for hearing on 11 January 2024 and 9 February 2024.

[5] The matter was called for clarification and oral submission on 7 February 2024.

II) Cause Papers, Bundle Of Documents, Witness Statements, And Submission

[6] This Court takes cognizance of the notes of proceedings and the following pleadings, evidence, documents, and submission while handing down this Award:

i. Statement of Case dated 25 May 2023;

ii. Statement in Reply dated 11 September 2023;

iii. Rejoinder dated 7 December 2023;

iv. Claimant's Bundle of Documents ("CLB-1")

v. Claimant's Bundle of Documents ("CLB-2")

vi. Company's Bundle of Documents Volume 1 ("COB-1")

vii. Company's Bundle of Documents Volume 2 ("COB-2")

viii. Witness Statement of Claimant (Gunna A/L Shanmugam) ('CLWS- 1")

ix. Witness Statement of Company (Mohd Sallehudin Bin Mahussain) ("COWS-1")

x. Witness Statement of Company (Hanifa Bin Seman) ("COWS-2")

xi. Witness Statement of Company (Mohd Noor Bin Md Isa) ("COWS- 3")

xii. Notes of Proceedings

III) The Parties Position On The Merits Of The Case

A) The Claimant's Case

The Claimant in its Statement of Case and Rejoinder pleaded the following:

[7] The Claimant contends that he relied on the income earned while working with the Company, and the Company's action of terminating his employment has caused hardship to him and his family.

[8] The Claimant asserts that the Company is obliged to retain him in service, and any termination must be based on legitimate reasons. The practice of "hire and fire at will" is not a good labor practice.

[9] The Claimant avers that since he was terminated without any valid reason and due to the Company's arrogant and dismissive actions, he is entitled to receive punitive damages if this Honorable Court determines that the termination was unjust and replaces the remedy of reinstatement with compensation.

[10] The Claimant believes that the penalty of termination is too severe and that the allegation of sleeping while on duty is unreasonable because he did not plan to shirk his duties or sleep on the job or act negligently while on duty.

[11] The Claimant argues that the internal investigation panel's recommendation to the company's top management to terminate his employment was unfair, as he did not deliberately sleep on the job or neglect his duties, and the management imposed a very harsh punishment without considering lighter penalties.

[12] The Claimant maintains that when he expressed regret, the Company showed no sympathy, and it failed to consider the mitigating factors presented by the Claimant. This oversight made the Company's decision to terminate him unjust and unlawful.

[13] The Claimant contends that the punishment of termination is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct, which he denies committing, and he states that he was terminated without any reasonable cause.

[14] The Claimant believes that the punishment of termination is akin to a death sentence because not all misconduct should result in termination. From a robust human resources management perspective, the Company should have explored alternative penalties, such as a 14-day suspension without pay, withholding annual raises, or issuing a warning to prevent recurrence. The Claimant asserts that the termination caused various hardships, especially financially, to him and his family.

[15] The Claimant pledges not to repeat the alleged misconduct (denying any wrongdoing)