Back
2019 MarsdenLR 438
INDUSTRIAL COURT KUALA LUMPUR
ZAINOL ZAKARIA – Appellant
Versus
UEM BUILDERS BERHAD – Respondent
Award No: 2695 Of 2019 [Case No: 27(5)/4-251/18]
For a dismissal to be justified, the employer must prove that the misconduct was severe enough to warrant the termination of the employee, emphasizing the duty of care owed by employees to their employers.
Headnote:The Industrial Court determines the legality of dismissal under s 20 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 concerning a claimant dismissed for alleged misconduct. Key findings by the court indicate that the employer bore the burden of proof, demonstrating just cause for the claimant's dismissal, which involved serious misconduct related to project management failures. The crux of the disputes revolved around whether the claimant failed in his duties to report critical issues affecting project cost and timeline. Issues addressed include the legality of the domestic inquiry conducted prior to dismissal and whether the claimant's actions exhibited misconduct warranting termination. The court asserted the employer's need to show that principles of natural justice were upheld and that the misconduct justified the disciplinary action taken. Ultimately, the court concluded that the dismissal was justified based on proven misconduct leading to substantial financial losses, confirming that the employer had acted within its rights and responsibilities under the law.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. industrial relations are fundamentally governed by transparency and accountability. (Para 1 , 2) |
[1] This is a reference by the Honourable Minister of Human Resources under s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 for an award in respect of a dispute arising out of the dismissal of ZAINOL BIN ZAKARIA ('Claimant') by UEM BUILDERS BERHAD ('Company').
The Reference
[2] The parties to the dispute are Zainol bin Zakaria ('Claimant') and UEM Builders Berhad ('Company'). The dispute which was referred to the Industrial Court by way of a Ministerial Reference under s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 made on 12 December 2017 is over the dismissal of the Claimant by the Company on 13 April 2017.
Documents
[3] The relevant cause papers before this Court are as follows:
a) Statement of Case dated 16 May 2018;
b) Statement in Reply dated 17 July 2018;
c) Claimant's Bundle of Documents (CLB-1, CLB-2, CLB-3 and CLB-4);
d) Company's Bundle of Documents (COB-1, COB-2, COB-3 and COB-4);
e) Claimant's Witness Statement (CLWS-2 and CLWS-2A);
f) Company's Witness Statement by En Eanis Azman Latiff [COW-1] (COWS-1);
g) Company's Witness Statement by En Roslan Ibrahim [COW-2] (COWS-2);
h) Company's Witness Statement by Tunku Siti Raudzoh Tunku Ibrahim[COW-3] (COWS-3); and
i) Company's Witness Statement by Mr Preamakanthan D Kanapathy [COW-4] (COWS-4).
