Dismissal without just cause or excuse requires substantial proof of misconduct by the employer.

Reference

[1] This is a reference made under s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (the Act) by the Minister of Human Resources arising out of the dismissal of EILEEN TAN SZE WEY (hereinafter referred to as "the Claimant") by DELL GLOBAL BUSINESS CENTRE SDN BHD (hereinafter referred to as "the Respondent") on 30 March 2018.

[2] The Ministerial reference in this case required the Court to hear and determine the Claimant's complaint of dismissal by the Respondent on 30 March 2018.

Facts

[3] The Claimant was employed as an Inside Sales Account Manager II (B2) - by the Respondent with effect from 12 July 2006. (CLB1 p 25-30) The Claimant last position was as a Consultant Field Marketing for SAK Solution Division with last drawn salary of RM15,520.60.

[4] On 2 February 2018, the Claimant received a show cause letter with two (2) allegations and with that letter the Claimant was suspended from work from 6 February 2018 till 19 February 2018 (CLB1 p 6-7). The two (2) allegations were as follows:

(i) Based on internal investigations and the discussion we had with you on the 22nd of January 2018, it was noted and established (by evidence further substantiated through your own admission verbally and in writing) that you had acted in a dishonest and fraudulent manner by illegally accepting benefits in the form of a fully funded trip to Phuket, from 20th - 22nd May 2018 with accommodation at Club Med Resort along with family members, from Dell's field marketing vendor namely Emanon, for your own personal benefit and gain.

(ii) During the time of this travel, it was noted that you were not part of the SnP Sales operations and any of its program. Nevertheless, you had willingly accepted and benefited the illegal benefit in a form of a trip to Phuket whilst having the explicit knowledge that the trip was fully funded by Dell's marketing vendor - Emanon. In this regard, you had failed to use your own sound judgment, Dell's values, and ethical principles as decision filters to guide your actions and that of your colleagues, when accepting the above illegal benefits from Dell's marketing vendor (Emanon) and had failed to report such activity immediately.

[5] The Claimant replied to the show cause letter vide her letter dated 9 February 2018 where she denied both the allegations (CLB1 p 8-9).

[8] The Respondent unsatisfied with the Claimant's reply, issued to the Claimant a letter dated 13 February 2018, informing that a Domestic Inquiry (DI) would be held against her on 1 March 2018 wherein the two (2) charges were preferred against her (CLB1 p 10).

[7] The DI was held on 1 March 2018. The Claimant avers that the Respondent failed to call even one of its witnesses. Instead, the Respondent introduced statements recorded from 4 witnesses and admitted the evidence against her. The Claimant strenuously against this as she was unable to challenge any of the statements as the witnesses were not present to be cross examined and this went against the rule of natural justice. During the DI, the misconduct as alleged the Respondent kept pressuring the Claimant to admit that she had done.

[8]Vide letter dated 30 March 2018, the Respondent terminated the Claimant's services with immediate effect (CLB1 p 21).

[9] The Claimant contended that all the allegations levelled against her were false and the actions of the Respondent were mala fide and solely intended to dismiss the Claimant.

[10] In the alternative, the Claimant