Back
2012 MarsdenLR 1754
INDUSTRIAL COURT KUALA LUMPUR
RAMLI IBRAHIM MAMAT – Appellant
Versus
AUTOSTADT ASIA SDN BHD – Respondent
Award No: 307 Of 2012 [Case No: 13/4-1018/2010]
An employer must prove just cause for employee dismissal; failure to substantiate claims leads to dismissal being deemed unjust.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Section 20(3) - Dismissal of an employee - Burden of proof lies on the employer to justify dismissal with just cause or excuse - Standard of proof is based on balance of probabilities - Company failed to provide evidence justifying dismissal based on alleged personal problems of the employee. (Paras 8-9, 11-15)
(B) Industrial Court's functions - Industrial Court must determine whether termination was with or without just cause or excuse based on evidence provided by the employer. (Para 9)
(C) Remedies - Reinstatement not appropriate; back wages awarded not exceeding 24 months based on last drawn salary; deductions for post-dismissal earnings considered. (Paras 17-21)
Facts of the case:
Claimant, serving as General Manager Operations, was dismissed without just cause as the company did not substantiate allegations relating to personal issues affecting workplace safety. The dismissal occurred on 14 April 2009.
Findings of Court:
The Claimant's dismissal was found to be without just cause or excuse, with the Court awarding RM 238,680.00 as compensation.
Issues: Whether the dismissal was justified with just cause or excuse.
Ratio Decidendi: The employer failed to prove the misconduct; the termination was deemed unjust.
Result: Claimant's case allowed; Claimant awarded back wages and compensation.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the case (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. claimant's employment and dismissal details (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. core issue of just cause (Para 7) |
| 4. burden of proof and court's duty (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. court's analysis of dismissal justification (Para 11 , 12 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. court's findings on dismissal justification. (Para 13) |
| 7. conclusion on dismissal just cause (Para 17) |
| 8. remedies and final orders (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
[1] This is a reference by the Honourable Minister of Human Resource under s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 on 26 July 2010 arising out of the dismissal of Ramli Bin Ibrahim @ Mamat (the "Claimant") on 14 April 2009 by Autostadt Asia Sdn. Bhd. (the "Respondent").
[2] The hearing of this case commenced and concluded in the Technology Court on 8 August 2011. The Claimant was initially represented by Mr. Peter Kandiah of the Malaysian Trades Union Congress (MTUC). On the mention date of 11 October 2011, the Claimant's representative discharged from representing the Claimant. The Respondent was represented by Mr. T. Gajendran of Messrs Jayadeep Hari & Jamil. The Respondent vide Enclosure 23 in a letter dated 20 February 2012 confirms that the Company would not be filing any Written Submissions as the Company is dormant and had ceased operations. The Claimant filed his Written Submissions on 22 February 2012.
[3] The Statement of Case was filed by MTUC on 17 February 2011. There were also documents annexed to the Statement of Case marked as CL-1 - CL-4. The Company filed the Corporate Information (exhibited as CO-1) as at 4 August 2011 stating that the Company was registered on 29 April 2005 and the status is existing. The nature of the Company's business is in relation to the import and export of motor vehicles, spare parts and accessories.
Brief Facts
[4] The Claimant aged 47 years old testified on 8 August 2011 by way of his witness statement produced and marked as CLWS-1. The Claimant commenced employment with the Company as a General Manager Operations reporting to the Director on 1 June 2007. The Claimant's letter of appointment (marked as exhibit CL-2) dated 29 March 2007 was signed by the Director of the Company. According to the Confirmation of Employment letter dated 8 April 2008 signed by the Company's Director, Zulkifli Ishak as reflected in CL-3, the Claimant was confirmed in this position with effect from 1 January 2008. The Claimant's salary was adjusted to RM 14,040.00 per month.
[5] Vide the Notice of Termination of Services dated 14 April 2009 (CL-4) signed by the Company's Director, Rashdan Amir, the Claimant's contract of employment was terminated by giving one month notice with immediate effect. The contents of the said letter are reproduced as follows:
" It is with regret that the management hereby inform you that your service with the company is being terminated with immediate effect. The management have assisted you and supported you in resolving your personal problem, also advising you to ensure the company, the management, the staff and assets not to be affected by your personal problem. The management strongly feel the staffs' safety is utmost concern and priority to us. Despite efforts to assist, resolve and advice you in addressing your problem, it is now affected the safety and security of the company, management and staff.
It is with much regret that we have to terminate your services. In accordance with the terms and conditions of your employment offer and confirmation letter, the company is to issue 1 month notice or payment of 1 month salary in lieu of notice, in the event of termination. As goodwill, we are providing you 2 months salary. Please return all company assets accorded to you immediately to the Finance Department."
[6] In para 11 of the Statement of Claim, the Claimant prays that the Company to reinstate the Claimant to his former position. The Claimant is currently employed as a part time lecturer at the Victoria International College Kuala Lumpur
