Back
2019 MarsdenLR 1335
INDUSTRIAL COURT KUALA LUMPUR
SUBURAMANIAM ROKONATHAN – Appellant
Versus
KLCC PROJEKS SDN BHD – Respondent
Award No: 2526 Of 2019 [Case No: 6(32)(6)/4-1343/17]
The burden of proof for established misconduct leading to dismissal lies with the employer, requiring cogent evidence of misconduct.
Headnote:This is a reference under s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 regarding the dismissal of the Claimant for misconduct involving a conflict of interest in a tenancy agreement with a contractor. The Court found that both charges of misconduct were substantiated and that the dismissal was with just cause. The burden of proof lies on the employer and the Court must determine if the dismissal was justified. The dismissal was upheld.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background on the claimant's employment and the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. reference initiated under the industrial relations act 1967. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. summary of misconduct charges and dismissal process. (Para 8) |
[1] This is a reference by the Honourabale Minister of Human Resources under s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (" IRA 1967") arising out of the termination of Suburamaniam A/L Rokonathan (hereinafter referred to as "the Claimant") by KLCC Projeks Sdn Bhd (hereinafter referred to as "the Company") on 27 February 2017.
Brief Facts Of The Case
[2] The Claimant commenced employment with the Company which was previously known as Kuala Lumpur City Centre Berhad as a Manager in the Company's Logistic Department effective 2 January 1997 with a basic salary of RM7,500.00 per month.
[3] During the Claimant's tenure of employment, he was promoted and held various positions. His last position was as the Head of Residential and Infrastructure Division (Grade E5) since 1 October 2011 with a basic salary of RM20,905.00 per month.
[4] The Claimant received a show cause letter from the Company dated 17 October 2016 informing the Claimant that he had acted in breach of his express and/or implied terms and conditions of service by accepting monetary payment from a Contractor who provides construction services for the Company. The Company further suspended the Claimant with full pay. The Claimant was required to reply to the show cause letter.
[5] The Claimant via a letter dated 20 October 2016, replied to the Company's show cause letter.
[6]Vide a letter dated 30 November 2016, the Claimant was informed that a Domestic Inquiry would be held against him on 8 December 2016 in order to provide the Claimant with an opportunity to further render his explanation on the alleged charges outlined against him in the same letter.
[7] The inquiry against the Claimant commenced as scheduled on 8 December 2016. The Claimant pleaded not guilty to the two (2) charges of misconduct. The inquiry was concluded on the same day i e 8 December 2016.
[8] Subsequently, the Company vide a letter dated 27 February 2017, informed the Claimant that he was found guilty of the two (2) charges of misconduct preferred in the Notice of Inquiry. The Company dismissed the Claimant from the Company's services with immediate effect.
