Back
2022 MarsdenLR 1469
INDUSTRIAL COURT JOHOR BAHRU
GAN EE LENG – Appellant
Versus
LT CHROME ENGINEERING SDN BHD – Respondent
Award No: 1648 Of 2022 [Case No: 22(16)/4-888/21]
The court upheld termination of an employee for poor work performance, emphasizing that sufficient opportunities for improvement were provided and the employer's dissatisfaction was genuine.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act 1967 (Act 177) – Section 20(3) – Dismissal of employee – Claimant dismissed for poor work performance and attitude – Claimant failed to use the ERP system properly, which resulted in outstanding work and customer complaints – Court finds termination was with just cause and excuse, as the Claimant was given ample opportunities to improve but failed to do so. (Paras 28, 32, 51, 58)
(B) Burden of proof in unfair dismissal cases lies with the employer, who must prove the allegations against the employee on a balance of probabilities. (Paras 28, 31)
Facts of the case: Claimant was employed as a Planner, initially confirmed after 3 months with salary increases but showed continuous deficiencies in job performance related to the ERP system. After warnings and a disciplinary inquiry, the Claimant was terminated for failure to improve work performance and attitude. (Paras 7, 27, 49)
Findings of Court: The Claimant's dismissal upheld as having just cause based on insufficient improvement in performance despite numerous opportunities. (Paras 51, 58)
Issues: Whether the poor work performance was proven and if dismissal was justified. (Paras 32)
Ratio Decidendi: Claimant's conduct and attitude led to performance issues; dismissals for incompetence valid if employer's dissatisfaction is genuine. (Paras 52, 54)
Result: Claimant's case dismissed.
AWARD
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 Gan Ee Leng (hereinafter referred to as "the Claimant") by LT Chrome Engineering Sdn Bhd (hereinafter referred to as "the Company") on 20 October 2020.
[2] The Ministerial reference in this case required the Court to hear and determine the Claimant's complaint of dismissal by the Company on 20 October 2020.
I. Procedural History
[3] The Court received the letter pertaining to the Ministerial reference under s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 on 17 March 2021.
[4] The matter was fixed for mention on 5 May 2021 and 24 August 2021 before the then learned Chairman of Court No 16 (Johor Bahru), Puan Noor Hayati Binti Haji Mat.
[5] Due to the learned Chairman Puan Noor Hayati Binti Haji Mat's elevation to the High Court of Malaya as a Judicial Commissioner on 4 February 2022, the learned President of the Industrial Court instructed me (ie Chairman of Court 22) to hear this case and accordingly hand down an Award.
[6] The trial proceeded before me at the Industrial Court at Johor Bahru on 21 March 2022 and concluded on 8 May 2022.
II. The Parties' Position On The Merits
a. The Claimant
[7] The Claimant commenced employment with the Company as a Planner from 15 March 2010 with a basic salary of RM3,000.00 and transport allowance of RM200.00 per month. A letter of appointment dated 8 April 2010 was issued to the Claimant without the job description of a Planner. She was later confirmed in her position.
[8] Initially as a Planner, the Claimant reported to Mr Lee Fook Heng (COW-4; Managing Director) and subsequently from 1 August 2019 she reported to Mr Wong Kok Hoong (COW-3; Manager) as she became the Planner for Production.
[9] There was no job description as a Planner. However, from 1 August 2019, though she was maintained as a Planner for Production, the Claimant was provided with the job description of Senior Production Planner.
[10]Vide email dated 1 June 2020, the Claimant via the Employee Complaint Form complained on the entry and changes of the data in the Enterprises Resources Planning ("ERP") system, which hindered the Claimant from carrying out her duties. The Claimant also complained on the behaviour of her superior.
[11] Via an Employee Complaint Form on 15 May 2020, the Claimant's immediate superior, ie COW-3, narrated his nature of complaint against the Claimant that she had left the meeting room and did not complete the improvement briefing.
[12] On 15 June 2020, a Show Cause letter was issued to the Claimant alleging that the Claimant had failed to follow instruction and behaved rudely. The Claimant had remarked at the bottom of the Show Cause letter that "HR pending dengan boss, Employee Complaint form yang ada saksi tidak diselesaikan", for which no follow up action was taken by the Company.
[13] Via employee briefing/interview records dated 23 July 2020, the Claimant reiterated the issue of lack of manpower, no proper planning in production, schedule given not updated and did not match with production running process but there was no solution thereto.
[14] Another employee briefing/interview record was issued on 4 September 2020 wherein the Claimant once again remarked that there was a lack of manpower, but again this was not heeded by the Company.
[15]Vide letter dated 8 September 2020 under the first warning letter, KPI targets were set starting from 15 August 2020. The Claimant had remarked on the warning letter "When can I get manpower". The ERP system in respect of data and planning action were not effectively addressed, coupled with the issue of lack of manpower.
[16] The Claimant was suspended for investigation vide letter dated 5 October 2020 allegedly with regards to major mistakes and many outstanding purchase orders and KPI targets starting from 15 August 2020.
[17] The Claimant was terminated from her employment vide letter dated 20 October 2020 on the gr
