Back
2009 MarsdenLR 3294
HAPIPAH MONEL
REX METAL PACKAGING BHD – Appellant
Versus
RAJAGOPAL MARUDAMUTHU – Respondent
An employer must substantiate allegations of misconduct with compelling evidence to justify termination; failure to do so renders dismissal unlawful.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act - Relevant principles of unfair dismissal and burden of proof - The employer has the burden to demonstrate just cause for termination of employment.
(B) Insubordination - The court emphasized that mere words should not lead to punitive actions without substantiated evidence.
(C) Industrial jurisprudence mandates that the employer presents convincing proof of misconduct before lawful dismissal can be sanctioned.
Facts of the case:
The claimant, employed since June 1, 1974, was dismissed following allegations of insubordination relating to a management meeting. He contested the claims, asserting he did not obstruct workers from attending the meeting. The inquiry found the company deficient in evidence.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the company failed to prove the charges of insubordination and found the dismissal was without just cause.
Issues: The court addressed whether the alleged insubordination occurred and if proper evidence substantiated the claims made by the employer.
Ratio Decidendi: The court articulated that the dismissal lacked viable proof and reiterated the employer's obligation to present solid evidence for any claims of misconduct.
Result: The court awarded RM82,940.00 to the claimant.
Fakta Kes
Yang Menuntut telah bekerja dengan Syarikat mulai 1 Jun 1974 sebagai pekerja Pengeluaran. Jawatan terakhir Yang Menuntut dalam Syarikat tersebut adalah Operator Mesin dengan gaji sebanyak RM1,508.00 sebulan.
Pada 28 September 2005 Syarikat telah mengeluarkan surat tunjuk sebab terhadap Yang Menuntut (CLB1 4 muka surat). Yang Menuntut didakwa telah menentang pihak pengurusan, Surat tersebut berbunyi:-
"
REX METAL PACKAGING BHD
Date : 28 September 2005
To Emp. No : Rajagopal a/l Marudamuthu
1000
Present
Dear Raja Gopal,
Re: Going Against Management Authorities
On 27 September 2005 at about 3.00 pm, the Production Supervisor has instructed 10 workers from production line to the conference for the briefing.
The briefing were given on the current position relating to the Collective Bargaining negotiation and also to the speak about slow down in production which has been going on since Monday. The workers also informed about disciplinary matter.
At the briefing the Management has called 10 other workers to give them a similar for the briefing. You have stop the worker from coming the briefing.
Your action constitute an act which is an affront to the managemant legitimate authority to give instruction to the workers.
You are to show cause why the disciplinary an action should not taken against you. You reply should reach by 03 October 2005 before 5.30 pm. In meantime you are suspended from work for further notice.
Kindly acknowledge receipt of this letter by signing on the duplicate copy and return it to this office immediately.
Your faithfully,
REX METAL PACKAGING BERHAD
ANUAR BIN ZAKARIA
Assistant HR Manager
"
Yang Menuntut telah menjawab surat tunjuk sebab tersebut melalui surat bertarikh 30 September 2005 (CLB1 muka surat 5):
"
30th September 2005
Encik Anuar bin Zakaria
Assistant HR Manager
Rex Metal Packaging Bhd
NO. 2, Jalan Gangsa
Kawasan Perindustrian Telok Panglima Garang
42500 Kuala Langat
Dear Sir,
I refer to your letter dated 28th September 2005,
I regret note that the company has chosen to blame me and other members of Union Works Committee for the workers resufal to attent your meeting. I did not stop the workers from attending your meeting.
Infact when a group of workers approached me, I advised them to attend the meeting and they did. After the meeting the same group approached me and other members of the committee complaining that the management treatened to dismiss them.
I did not stop any of workers from attending any meeting. I see your allegation as an attempt to build up a case against me and other members of the committee.
I hope you will not unreasonably victimise me because of my position in the Union Committee.
Your faithfully
tt
Rajagopal A/L Marudmuthu
"
Melalui surat tunjuk sebab ini Syarikat menuduh Yang Menuntut telah menghalang pihak pengurusan untuk berurusan dengan sebahagian daripada pekerja mengenai perjanjian kolektif dan juga mengenai kelembapan pengeluaran. Yang Menuntut menjawab bahawa pihak Syarikat telah cuba menyalahkan Yang Menuntut atas keengganan pihak pekerja untuk menghadiri mesyuarat tersebut. Menurut Yang Menuntut beliau malah menasihati pekerja menghadiri mesyuarat tersebut. Beliau diberitahu oleh mereka yang hadir di mesyuarat tersebut bahawa pekerja-pekerja telah diugut untuk diberhentikan kerja.
Kemudian Domestic Inquiry telah diadakan terhadap Yang Menuntut bersama 3 rakan sekerjanya yang lain. Yang Menuntut telah dikenakan 3 pertuduhan dan diakhir penyiasatan tersebut beliau telah disabitkan dengan tuduhan ketiga. Pertuduhan ketiga berbunyi:-
"(iii) You have committed an act insubordination on 27 September 2005 at around 3.00 pm, by shouting at the Management team and threatened the Management with words such as "you mau drum atau tak mau" among others."
Keterangan yang dikemukakan semasa perbicaraan
Adalah tidak dinafikan bahawa Yang Menuntut bersama 3 Ahli Union Workers Committee ada berjumpa dengan Encik Gan Ah H
