The dismissal of an employee without just cause or excuse violates the principles of industrial jurisprudence, requiring employers to provide warnings and opportunities for improvement before termination.

Reference

[1] This is a reference by the Director General of Industrial Relations made under s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (the Act) arising out of the dismissal of Yogeswary A/P Paloo ("the Claimant") by INAZUME (M) Sdn Bhd ("the Company") on 1 May 2021.

The Salient Facts

[2] The Claimant, Yogeswary a/p Paloo who held the position as a Project Manager in the Company filed a claim for unfair dismissal under s 20 of the Act.

[3] The Company's nature of business is construction and operates as the 1st level main contractors for various development projects throughout Malaysia. The Claimant entered into employment with the Company as the Project Manager on 15 August 2019 and was confirmed in her position on 1 November 2019. After a duration of 1 year and 7 months into her employment, by letter dated 31 March 2021 the Claimant's services were terminated with one (1) month notice on reasons that her performance did not meet the Company's expectation, the Company suffered multiples losses due to project delays and the Claimant had failed to coordinate project activities.

[4] In the notice of termination, the Claimant was given seven (7) days to reply to the notice of termination. The Claimant replied in which she asserted that she had been unfairly dismissed. Subsequent to that, the Company in their written reply, maintained their stance and asserted that the increase of RM500.00 after the confirmation of her position was to honour the pre agreement for increment during the interview session and it was not an increment that was attributed to her good performance. The Claimant's last drawn salary was RM7,000.00.

The Company's Case

[5] The Claimant was put to be in charge and to oversee an on going project, known as Wisma KLK project which had started since 29 March 2019 and was schedule to be completed by 28 January 2020.

[6] The responsibility of the Claimant as the Project Manager was to be in charge of the construction in all aspects and was mainly to avoid delays in its construction works.

[7] The Company contends that the Claimant had been warned and reminded prior to the incident that occurred due to her negligence of causing delay which resulted in losses between RM150,000.00 to RM200,000.00 to the Company. The events that led to the Claimant's dismissal were as follows:

i. The Claimant was instructed to work on site of a project where the Company was the main contractor to the Developer known as Kuala Lumpur Kepong Berhad (KLKB).

ii. Based on the Liquidated Ascertained Damage term in the Work Programme between the Company and KLKB, the construction of the project was supposed to be completed on 28 January 2020 and KLKB would be compensated should there be a delay in the completion of the project. Therefore, the Claimant as the Project Manager shall ensure that no delay would occasion in completing the project.

iii. During the 11th site meeting held on 21 August 2019, KLKB had raised about the absence of the time line for each stage of the construction known as 'Critical Path' for keeping track with the date line of each stage of the completion of project construction.

iv. At the 12th site meeting, the issue of the purported sharp increase on the Actual Progress till 33% from 12% noted during the 11th site meeting was raised as not being the correct Actual Progress as claimed as it does not match the work done at the construction site which is at its minim