Back
2025 MarsdenLR 2294
INDUSTRIAL COURT KUALA LUMPUR
USAMA AHMED JUNAID – Appellant
Versus
CONCENTRIX CVG MALAYSIA SDN BHD – Respondent
Award No: 751 Of 2025 [Case No: 3/4-1183/24]
Dismissal for providing false information in employment documents constitutes a serious breach of trust, justifying termination under the Industrial Relations Act 1967.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Subsection 20(3) - Dismissal for misconduct - Claimant dismissed for providing false information regarding employment tenure - Company conducted Domestic Inquiry as per its policy - Claimant admitted to discrepancies but claimed clerical error - Court found dismissal justified due to breach of trust and lack of evidence supporting Claimant's defense - The Domestic Inquiry was deemed valid and fair, adhering to principles of natural justice. (Paras 1, 9, 10, 28, 30, 46)
(B) Misconduct - Definition - Misconduct refers to conduct so seriously in breach of accepted practice that, by standard of fairness and justice, the employer should not be bound to continue the employment. (Paras 39, 40)
Facts of the case:
The Claimant, after being hired, misrepresented his employment tenure in documents submitted to the Company. Following a background check revealing discrepancies, he was dismissed after a Domestic Inquiry. (Paras 4, 5, 10)
Findings of Court:
The Court established that the Claimant's dismissal was justified based on the misconduct of providing false information, which breached the trust fundamental to the employment relationship. (Paras 30, 46)
Issues: The main issues were whether the Claimant was dismissed with just cause and whether the Domestic Inquiry was conducted fairly. (Paras 10, 40)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Claimant's actions constituted a serious breach of trust, justifying dismissal, and that the Domestic Inquiry was conducted properly, affording the Claimant a fair chance to defend himself. (Paras 30, 46)
Result: Claimant's claim dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dismissal due to discrepancies in employment history. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. court's analysis on the validity of the domestic inquiry. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 18 , 20 , 23 , 27 , 28 , 31 , 32 , 34 , 35 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45) |
| 3. claimant's arguments on procedural fairness and misconduct. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 19 , 21 , 22 , 24 , 29 , 30) |
| 4. termination justified due to breach of trust. (Para 26 , 46) |
Reference
[1]This is a reference made pursuant to subsection 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 [Act 177] arising out of the dismissal of Usama Ahmed Junaid (hereinafter referred to as "the Claimant") by Concentrix CVG Malaysia Sdn Bhd (hereinafter referred to as "the Company") on 23 September 2024.
Brief Facts
[2] Vide an email dated 17 December 2023 (pg. 4, COB1) the Claimant was selected for the position of Advisor 1, Customer Service and was requested to submit to the Company the following documents:
(i) Application Form & BGV Form;
(ii) Copy of Passport;
(iii) Copy of Identity Card/National ID;
(iv) Updated Resume; and
(v) Copy of Payslip or Employment Letter.
[3] The Claimant thereafter sent the documents via an email dated 17 December 2023 and also via WhatsApp on 12 January 2024 (pg. 22, CLB2). Based on the documents submitted to the Company by the Claimant, the Claimant in his Resume (pg. 25, COB1) cited that he was working for a company known as Silverlight Research Expert Network from the period of March 2022 till November 2022. The same information that Claimant was working for a company known as Silverlight Research Expert Network from the period of March 2022 till November 2022 was also declared in his Application Form and Background Check Form (p 2 - 7, COB2).
[4] By an offer Letter dated 21 December 2023 (pg. 1-3, COB1), the Claimant started to work with the Company on 15.01 2024 as its Advisor I, Content Service, Supporting, Bytendance Manager. The Company later conducted a Background Check on the Claimant and had found discrepancies on the Claimant's tenure with Silverlight Research Expert Network, where the Company had found out that the Claimant's tenure with Silverlight Research Expert Network was from 11 August 2022 till November 2022, and not as declared by the complainant in his Resume and Application Form.
[5] In reference to the Company's Policy (p 74, CLB3), the Company had decided to hold a Domestic Inquiry against the Claimant as the Company sees the discrepancy as a serious case of misconduct and that under para 2 of the Offer Letter, it clearly stipulates that the Company has the right to terminate the Claimant in the event of unsatisfactory result of the background check.
[6] The Company had issued the Claimant with a Show Cause Letter dated 26 January 2024 (pg. 40, COB1) demanding the Claimant to explain such discrepancy. The Claimant in his reply to the Show Cause Letter on 26 January 2024 had acknowledged that he had mistakenly provided an inaccurate information regarding his tenure with Silverlight Research Expert Network.
[7] The Company vide email dated 5 February 2024 had issued a reply to the claimant's reply to the Show Cause Letter dated 26 January 2024 stating the Company's dissatisfaction with the reply of the Claimant (pg. 50, COB1). Following this the Company issued A Notice of Domestic Inquiry dated 5 May 2024 (p 43-44, COB1). The Domestic Inquiry was held eventually on 7 February 2024. The Claimant was dismissed on 15 February 2024 (p 51, COB1).
[8] This is a rather straight forward dismissal case. The Court has gone through the evidence as given through testimony in Court and the documents and submission that have been filed. Those documents and submissions are listed for ease of reference as follows:
(i) Claimant's Statement of Case dated 26 November 2024;
(ii) Company's Statement in Reply dated 9 December 2024;
(iii) Claimant's Statement of Rejoinder dated 23 December 2024;
(iv) Claimant's Bundle of Docum
