Back
2023 MarsdenLR 1250
INDUSTRIAL COURT KUALA LUMPUR
YUSZIKEFLIE YUSOFF @ ATAN – Appellant
Versus
TOTAL LOGISTIC SERVICES (M) SDN BHD – Respondent
Award No: 2256 Of 2023 [Case No: 22/4-143/22]
The dismissal of an employee for proven misconduct, including absenteeism and insubordination, is justified under the Industrial Relations Act when procedural fairness is observed.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Section 20(3) - Dismissal of employee - Employer must establish misconduct and whether it constitutes just cause for dismissal - Claimant was found guilty of multiple charges including absenteeism and insubordination, warranting dismissal - Dismissal upheld as just cause was established. (Paras 30, 34, 73, 78)
(B) Procedural fairness - Employee must be given a fair hearing and opportunity to defend against allegations - Court found no irregularities in domestic inquiry process, upholding the employer's decision. (Paras 75, 76)
Facts of the case:
The Claimant was dismissed for multiple acts of misconduct, including unauthorized absence and insubordination, following a domestic inquiry that found him guilty of all charges. The dismissal occurred on 30 April 2021 after the Claimant's conduct was deemed unacceptable.
Findings of Court:
The Court affirmed the Company's dismissal of the Claimant as justified based on proven misconduct and adherence to procedural fairness.
Issues: The main issues were whether the Claimant committed the alleged misconduct and if such misconduct justified dismissal.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the employer met the burden of proof in establishing misconduct and that the Claimant's actions constituted just cause for dismissal, emphasizing the importance of compliance with workplace rules.
Result: Claimant's case dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. reference under industrial relations act (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. claimant's employment history and allegations (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. company's position and allegations against claimant (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 4. domestic inquiry findings and dismissal (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 5. company's argument on fair hearing (Para 29) |
| 6. function of industrial court (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 7. issues to be determined (Para 34) |
| 8. charges on absenteeism (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 9. claimant's reasons for absenteeism (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51) |
| 10. legal principles on absenteeism (Para 52 , 53) |
| 11. court's finding on absenteeism (Para 54) |
| 12. charges on insubordination (Para 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61) |
| 13. court's finding on insubordination (Para 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66) |
| 14. charge on leaving workplace early (Para 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71) |
| 15. just cause for dismissal (Para 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76) |
| 16. conclusion and dismissal of claimant's case (Para 78) |
Reference
[1] This is a reference made under s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (Act 177), arising out of the dismissal of Yuszikeflie Bin Yusoff @ Atan (hereinafter referred to as "the Claimant") by Total Logistic Services (M) Sdn Bhd (hereinafter referred to as "the Claimant") on 30 April 2021.
[2] The reference by the Director General of Industrial Relations ("DGIR") in this case required the Court to hear and determine the Claimants' complaint of dismissal by the Company on 30 April 2021.
I. Procedural History
[3] The Court received the letter pertaining to the DGIR reference under s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 on 20 January 2022.
[4] The matter was fixed for mention on 24 February 2022, 15 April 2022, 24 June 2022, 21 February 2023 and 31 July 2023.
[5] The trial commenced on 2 August 2023 and concluded on 3 August 2023.
II. The Parties' Position On The Merits
(a) The Claimant
[6] The Claimant commenced employment with the Company as a Logistics Assistant II on 14 July 2003.
[7]Vide letter dated 2 October 2020, the Claimant had received a show cause letter wherein 4 allegations were made against him pursuant to a misconduct report from the BRLC CKD management.
[8] On 16 October 2020, the Company had again issued another show cause letter wherein the Claimant was informed of his suspension from work effective immediately until 29 October 2020.
[9] The Claimant had responded to the show cause letter vide his letter dated 20 October 2020. However, on 28 October 2020, the Company had informed the Claimant that his suspension period has been extended to an indefinite date due to the implementation of the Conditional Movement Control Order.
[10] On 3 December, the Company issued a Notice of Domestic Inquiry wherein the Claimant was informed that a Domestic Inquiry will be held on 15 December 2020. The Claimant only received the Company's Notice of Domestic Inquiry in the afternoon of 10 December 2020.
[11] The Domestic Inquiry proceeded on 15 December 2020 wherein the Claimant was present and had denied all charges against him. The Claimant was thereafter required to be present at the Company on 3 May 2021 to discuss on the issue of salary deduction, overtime as well as annual leave and also the salary slip for October 2020. Instead, the Claimant was asked to sign the domestic inquiry minutes. The Claimant refused to do so as the said minutes contained many variations.
[12] The Claimant received a Termination Letter from the Company dated 23 April 2021 wherein his last day of employment would be 30 April 2021.
(b) The Company
[13] The Company is a logistics company which, inter alia, provides international freight and forwarding, warehousing, transportation and sub-assembly services to its customers.
[14] The Claimant commenced his employment with the Company on 14 July 2003 as a Warehouse Operator. By a Letter of Restructuring of Job Position and Grade date
