The court found that termination was justified based on established poor performance and proper procedural conduct in the Domestic Inquiry as per the Industrial Relations Act.

Domnic Selvam Gnanapragasam:

[1] This is a reference by the Honorable Minister of Human Resources under s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 . The reference arose out of a complaint of termination without just cause or excuse couched as retrenchment of one NAN BIN MOHD TAIB hereafter referred to as ("the Claimant") by his former employer MAYBANK BERHAD (hereinafter referred to as "the Bank") on 23 August 2017.

[2] This Award is handed down pursuant to a Reference under s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 arising from the dismissal of NAN BIN MOHD TAIB("the Claimant") by his erstwhile employer; MAYBANK BERHAD ("the Respondent") on 23 August 2017.

The Hearing

[3] This matter was heard over a span of four days on 18 April 2019, 25 July 2019, 1 October 2019 and 14 November 2019. The Court upon the conclusion of the trial directed the solicitors for the parties to file written submissions; to which they duly complied with. The Court wishes to place on record its appreciation and gratitude to the Learned Counsels for the respective parties for their assistance to this Court. The Court now hands down its award.

Brief Facts of the Case

The Claimant's Pleaded Case

[4] The Claimant pleads that he held the post of an Operations Officer with the Respondent at its Tanjung Malim, Perak Branch. Vide a letter dated 22 August 2017 he was terminated of his employment on the allegation that he was found guilty of the charges leveled against him alleging in a Domestic Inquiry (DI) that was held on 25 July 2017. He was terminated on 23 August 2017. The Claimant contends that all the charges leveled against him were arbitrary, capricious and conducted with improper motives and mala fide against fairness / natural justice and was made for the purpose of victimizing him. He further pleaded that the DI was not properly constituted and was conducted with improper motives and mala fide contrary to fairness and natural justice. It is also the plea of the Claimant that no one at the material time was willing to be his witness in the DI as they were still working with the Bank.

Bank's Case

[5] The Respondent Bank in its Statement In Reply averred that the Claimant was terminated of his services due to poor performance and that it was with just cause and excuse. It stated that the Clamant joined the Bank on 1 April 1982 as a clerk. He has risen up the ladder in the organization and that the time of his dismissal he held the post of that of an Executive. The Claimant for the financial year of 2015 was rated as: "Did not meet" for his work performance by reason of his failure and / or inability to achieve assigned duties up to the minimum expectation of the Bank. He was the placed on as "Consequence Management ("CM") Performance Improvement Program. Pursuant to the CM, his work performance was rated "Not Satisfactory" and was given a First Warning Letter. He was subsequently placed under a 2nd CM (CM-2) and his job function was changed to that of a Relief Officer with effect from 19 September 2016. Again he did not improve and his performance was rated as "Not Satisfactory". He was issued a Second Warning Letter dated 11 January 2017. Consequently, he was placed under a third CM (CM-3) and was again rated "Not Satisfactory". At a target setting meeting on 1 March 2017, the Claimant was informed of his performance targets and he had agreed to the same by signing the improvement plan on the Final CM Performance Improvement Plan. At the end of the grace period, his performance was again rated "Not Satisfactory". As such a Notice of DI dated 14 July 2017 was issued and subsequently convened on 25 July 2017. The Claimant attended and participated in the DI. He was found guilty of committing a serious breach of duty by failing to perform his assigned duties up to the minimum expectation of the Bank and he was dismissed with effect from 23 August 2017.

The Issue

[6] It is not in dispute here that the Claimant was terminated of his services with the Ban