Dismissal of an employee for serious misconduct involving violence is justified under the Industrial Relations Act, emphasizing workplace safety and adherence to company conduct codes.

AWARD

Augustine Anthony:

The Reference

[1] This is a reference dated 10 March 2023 by the Director General of the Department of Industrial Relations, Ministry of Human Resources pursuant to s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 ("The Act") arising out of the dismissal of JOLLY BIN MUSA (Claimant) by ANSELL NP SDN BHD (Company) on the 3 June 2022.

[2] Pursuant to the direction of this Court , the parties in this matter filed their respective submissions dated 16 July 2024 (Claimant's written submissions), 3 July 2024 but filed on the 19 July 2024 (Company's written submissions), 31 July 2024 (Claimant's written submissions in reply) and 31 July 2024 (Company's written submissions in reply).

[3] This Court considered all the notes of proceedings in this matter, documents and cause papers in handing down this Award namely:

(i) The Claimant's Statement of Case dated 25 May 2023;

(ii) The Company's Statement in Reply dated 21 June 2023;

(iii) The Claimant's Rejoinder dated 17 July 2023;

(iv) The Claimant's Bundle of Documents - CLB 1 & CLB 2;

(v) The Company's Bundles of Documents - COB1, COB 2 & COB 3;

(vi) The Claimant's Witness Statement - CLW - WS (Encik Jolly Bin Musa);

(vii) Company's Witness Statement - COW1-WS (Gunasaihal s/o Govindasamy);

(viii) Company's Witness Statement - COW2-WS (Siti Suhaida Bt Idrus);

(ix) Company's Witness Statement - COW3-WS (Miss Michelle Wong Yoon Fong).

Introduction

[4] The dispute before this Court relates to the claim by Jolly Bin Musa ("Claimant") that he was dismissed from his employment without just cause or excuse by Ansell N.P. Sdn Bhd ("the Company") on the 3 June 2022.

[5] The Claimant commenced employment with the Company on the 9 June 1994 as a Tester Operator and was subsequently transferred to the Cleaning & Service Department effective 1 April 2009.

[6] On the 12 May 2022 at around 9.25am, an incident happened at the Company's canteen involving the Claimant and a migrant worker who is an employee of the Company at that time. Arising from the dissatisfaction of the Claimant due to the conduct of the migrant worker pouring away his unfinished drinking water back to the water tray of the water dispenser, the Claimant became angry and reprimanded the migrant worker. This altercation continued resulting in the Claimant drawing out a utility knife from his pouch tied to his waist and aggressively pursuing the migrant worker with his knife in his hand. The Claimant then approached the migrant worker with his knife in his hand but an officer of the Company immediately intercepted and directed the Claimant to put down the knife which the Claimant refused. Very soon the situation was brought under controlled by the officer and the Claimant was then taken to the HR Department to be questioned. The whole event at the canteen was captured by a CCTV recording.

[7] The Claimant was later issued a show cause letter to answer a charge of misconduct wherein the Claimant was alleged to have used a utility knife to intimidate a migrant worker who was an employee of the Company. The Claimant responded to the show cause letter and admitted using the utility knife to frighten the migrant worker of the Company and pleaded to allow him to continue working for the Company but the Company nevertheless gave the Claimant a chance to properly defend himself with the aid of a union representative in a domestic inquiry held by the Company. At the conclusion of the domestic inquiry, the Claimant was found guilty of the charge of misconduct levelled against him and was accordingly dismissed in view of the seriousness of the misconduct which was in breach of the Company's code of conduct.

[8] The Claimant now states that he was dismissed by the Company without just cause or excuse and prays that he be reinstated to his former position in the Company without any loss of wages and other benefits. The Company however states that in view of the seriousness of the Claimant's misconduct, the dismissal of the Claimant from his e