Back
2022 MarsdenLR 2835
INDUSTRIAL COURT KUALA LUMPUR
CHRISTOPHER ANTHONY RAMASAMY – Appellant
Versus
TESCO STORE (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD – Respondent
Award No: 1308 Of 2022 [Case No: 7/4-726/20]
The dismissal of an employee must be supported by proven misconduct and ensure adherence to principles of Natural Justice during inquiry proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act 1967 – Section 20(3) – Dismissal of employee – The case concerns the dismissal of the Claimant by the Company on charges including misconduct. The Domestic Inquiry was conducted in compliance with Natural Justice principles, leading to dismissal. (Paras 6, 8, 11, 14)
(B)
Fairness in Dismissals – Dismissals must be warranted based on proven misconduct. The Court examined the processes followed by the Company, confirming the propriety of the dismissal. (Paras 11, 14)
Facts of the case:
The Claimant was dismissed after being found guilty of several acts of misconduct during a Domestic Inquiry. The allegations revolved around aggressive behavior leading to a former employee's resignation.
Findings of Court:
The findings supported the Company's decision to dismiss the Claimant, affirming the Domestic Inquiry's integrity and adherence to legal standards.
Issues
: Whether the Claimant was guilty of the charges and if the dismissal was proportionate.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Court upheld the Domestic Inquiry’s findings, concluding that the dismissal was justified based on proven misconduct.
Result:
Claim dismissed.
AWARD
A. Reference
[1] This is a reference from The Honourable Minister of Human Resources, Malaysia to the Industrial Court of Malaysia under s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 in respect of the dismissal of Christopher Anthony A/L Ramasamy ("the Claimant") by his employer, Tesco (M) Sdn Bhd ("the Company") on 6 September 2019.
B. Background Facts
[2] The Claimant commenced employment with the Company on 2 January 2002. He was later confirmed on 2 April 2002.
[3] The Claimant held various positions in the Company. In 2018 he was appointed as Head of Mall Operations. He held this designation till his date of dismissal on 6 September 2019.
[4] On 8 July 2019 the Company received an email from a former employee, Azrul Fahmi bin Muhammad Ali ("Azrul"). Azrul was the Company's former Mall Operations Manager in Kulai, Johor. He claimed he was forced to resign by the Claimant on account of a series of alleged misconducts.
[5] The Company investigated the matter and discovered that:
(a) On 17 June 2019, while Azrul was on medical leave, the Claimant and 5 other Mall Operations Staff visited Azrul's office. The Claimant and the Operations Staff had searched Azrul's office.
(b) The next day, 18 June 2019, The Claimant and several other Mall Operations employees arranged a meeting with Azrul to enquire on certain Auditing/Licensing Agreement and alleged Child Labour issues.
(c) During the meeting the Claimant raised his voice in a threatening manner asking Azrul to resign. The Claimant also informed Azrul that the Company's Management was aware of Azrul's non compliance issues and misconducts and will have a full investigations and will hold a Domestic Inquiry if Azrul did not resign.
(d) Azrul resign subsequently by tendering a one months' notice on 19 June 2019. The Company accepted Azrul's resignation but waived the remaining notice period.
(e) On 18 July 2019, the Company interview the Claimant with regards to Azrul's complaint. During the interview, an audio recording of the 18 June 2019 meeting with Azrul was played. The Claimant agreed that after listening to the recording, the manner he handled the matter was aggressive and threatening.
(f) On 7 July 2019, Mathew Squire, the Claimant's Line Manager called the Claimant enquiring about the incident on 18 June 2019 meeting with Azrul.
(g) The Company issued a show cause letter dated 18 July 2019 to the Claimant where 6 allegations of misconduct was raised that need the Claimant to provide a written explanations. The Claimant replied in writing dated 22 July 2019 to the show cause letter.
(h) The Company found the Claimant's reply to be unsatisfactory. The Company then issued a notice of inquiry informing the Claimant that a Domestic Inquiry was scheduled on 27 August 2019 for the Claimant to answer to the Six charges of misconduct.
(i) The Domestic Inquiry was held on 27 August 2019 as scheduled. The Claimant was given the opportunity to defend his case. The Panel of the Domestic Inquiry ruled and found that the Claimant guilty of all the Six charges.
(j) The Company found that the Claimant, a high ranking employee has failed to set an example to his subordinates and colleagues in respect of the values in which the Company strives to achieve. The Claimant revealed that he is lacked of integrity, honesty and professionalism.
(k) The Company issued a letter dated 6 September 2019 where the based on the findings of the Domestic Inquiry, the Claimant was dismissed with immediate effect.
(l) Unsatisfied with the Company's decision, the Claimant filed this present claim.
C. Issues
[6] Whether the Claimant was guilty as per charged in the Domestic Inquiry held on 20 August 2019 ?; and
[7] Whether the dismissal of the Claimant was proportionate to the proven misconduct?
D. The Court's Findings
[8] This Court is in agreement with the decision of the Federal Court in the case of Bumiputra Commerce Bank Bhd v. Mahkamah Perusahaan Malaysia & Anor, and the case of Skypak International (M) Sdn Bhd
