Termination of a probationary employee must be justified and reasonable, with the burden of proof on the employer to demonstrate just cause based on the balance of probabilities.

Headnote:(A) Employment Act, 1955 - Principles on probationary employment - Dismissal of probationary employee must be just and reasonable - Employer's discretion to terminate employment of a probationary employee, but must provide valid reasons for termination (Paras 16, 22, 24).

(B) Evidence - Burden of proof on employer to establish just cause for termination on balance of probabilities (Para 22).

(C) Evidence - The requirement for written warnings regarding performance and misconduct before termination to establish fairness (Paras 23, 24).

Facts of the case:
The claimant was employed as an Executive Chef and was terminated during the probation period due to alleged performance issues including food quality complaints and misconduct. The employer cited various verbal and written complaints as grounds for termination.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the employer failed to substantiate the dismissal claims sufficiently, as crucial witness testimonies were incomplete due to unavailability.

Issues: The key issues involved whether the termination due to alleged misconduct was justified and whether the employer adequately communicated performance-related concerns to the employee.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a probationary employee should not be dismissed without just cause and adequate reasoning must be provided, establishing the need for fair treatment similar to permanents (based on existing precedents).

Result: The dismissal was ruled as unfair and without just cause; the claimant was entitled to back pay.

Table of Content
1. employment terms and probation period specifics (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. respondent's witness testimonies regarding performance failures (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. criteria for evaluating probationary employment (Para 16 , 17 , 18)
4. assessment and admissibility of witness testimonies (Para 19 , 20 , 21)
5. standards for wrongful termination and remedy (Para 22 , 23 , 24)

AWARD

Fakta Kes

1. Pihak Menuntut telah mula bekerja di syarikat Pihak Responden mulai 21.10.2002 sebagai Eksekutif Chef. Pihak Menuntut diletakkan dalam tempoh percubaan selama 6 bulan mulai 21.10.2002. Gaji akhir Pihak Menuntut sebelum ditamatkan perkhidmatan ialah RM5,000.00 sebulan. Di dalam surat perlantikan bertarikh 11.10.2002 Pihak Menuntut, terdapat terma berkaitan percubaan seperti berikut:-

"3. Probation

You are required to serve a probationary period of six (6) months with a further extension of three (3) months or more if found necessary at the total discretion of the Management from the date you report for duty. During the period of probation either initial or extended as the case may be your employment with the hotel may be terminated by either party without assigning any reason thereof by either party giving to the other seven (7) days written notice or paying seven (7) days salary in lieu thereof."

2. Pada 29.05.2003, Pihak Responden telah mengeluarkan surat pemberhentian kerja seperti berikut:-

"29 May 2003

Mohd Anuar Abdullah

Emp. No. A008

Executive Chef

The M-Suites

NOTICE OF TERMINATION

With reference to the above, we hereby give notice of your termination of employment. According to the terms of your contract we are required to give you one (1) weeks salary in lieu upon immediate termination.

You are hereby required to hand over all relevant documents and hotel property upon notice of your termination.

Yours faithfully,

sgd

Ron Gazny Yaacob

Human Resources Dept

The M-Suites

Cc Desmond Rozario

Resident Manager"

3. Sebelum Pihak Menuntut bekerja di syarikat Pihak Responden, beliau telah bekerja di Syarikat Delaneys Kuala Lumpur Sdn. Bhd. Pihak Responden telah membuat pembayaran sebanyak RM5,155.23 kepada Delaneys Kuala Lumpur Sdn. Bhd. sebagai bayaran ganti notis perletakan jawatan Pihak Menuntut di Delaneys Kuala Lumpur Sdn. Bhd. sebelum Pihak Menuntut diambil bekerja di syarikat Pihak Responden sebagai Eksekutif Chef mulai 21.10.2002. Ekoran daripada bayaran tersebut Pihak Menuntut telah dikehendaki menandatangani satu "letter of undertaking" yang ditandatangani oleh Pihak Menuntut pada 16.10.2002. Letter of undertaking tersebut terdapat di halaman 6 CLB seperti berikut:-

Keterangan Pihak Responden

4. Pihak Responden telah memanggil tiga orang saksi di dalam kes ini bagi menyokong kes Pihak Responden. Namun demikian, COW1 yang merupakan Pengurus Eksekutif Pihak Responden tidak dapat menamatkan keterangannya pada peringkat Pemeriksaan Balas kerana beliau tidak dapat dikesan. Semasa beliau memberikan keterangan, beliau terhenti pada peringkat Pemeriksaan Balas. Pada 14.07.2008, peguambela Pihak Responden telah memaklumkan kepada Mahkamah seperti berikut:-

"Encik Bernard George

COW1 has left the company, but we are unable to trace him. Another witness has been transferred to Indonesia."

Sehingga Pihak Responden menutup kes, COW1 tidak muncul untuk menyambung keterangan beliau di Mahkamah. Begitu juga dengan COW3 yang merupakan Food And Beverage Captain di syarikat Pihak Responden pada masa itu. Beliau terhenti keterangannya semasa Pemeriksaan Balas baru bermula. Pada 09.09.2009, peguambela Pihak Responden telah memaklumkan kepada Mahkamah bahawa beliau tidak boleh menghubungi saksi-saksi iaitu COW1 dan COW3 untuk meneruskan Pemeriksaan Balas di peringkat di mana mereka terhenti memberi keterangan. Oleh itu, Pihak Responden mengambil keputusan untuk menutup kes mereka. Ini bermakna keterangan yang dikemukakan oleh Pihak Responden ialah keterangan COW2, COW1 setakat Pemeriksaan Balas yang belum berakhir dan COW3 juga terhenti semas

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2011 MarsdenLR 4293

ROSLAN MAT NORM-RESORT HOTEL SDN BHD – AppellantVersusMOHD ANUAR ABDULLAH – Respondent

Termination of a probationary employee must be justified and reasonable, with the burden of proof on the employer to demonstrate just cause based on the balance of probabilities.

ROSLAN MAT NOR
M-RESORT HOTEL SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
MOHD ANUAR ABDULLAH – Respondent