Back
2025 MarsdenLR 2063
INDUSTRIAL COURT KOTA KINABALU
RAHIM LATUO – Appellant
Versus
FGV REFINERIES SDN BHD – Respondent
Award No: 350 Of 2025 [Case No: 17/4-136/23]
The employer must prove misconduct for dismissal, and the punishment must be proportionate to the severity of the misconduct.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Section 20(3) - Dismissal of employee - Allegations of misconduct including receiving money from a canteen operator and using it without proper documentation - Claimant admitted to charges during Domestic Inquiry - Court's duty to determine if misconduct was established and if it constituted just cause for dismissal. (Paras 1, 22, 30, 80)
(B) Burden of proof - The employer bears the burden to prove that the dismissal was with just cause or excuse, and must provide convincing evidence of the misconduct. (Paras 16, 18, 19)
(C) Proportionality of punishment - The dismissal must be proportionate to the misconduct committed, considering the employee's position and the nature of the misconduct. (Paras 57, 60, 79)
Facts of the case:
The Claimant was dismissed for receiving RM11,500 from a canteen operator and using it for gifts without proper records. He admitted to the charges during the Domestic Inquiry. The Company argued that the dismissal was lawful and justified.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the Claimant committed the alleged misconduct and that the dismissal was with just cause and excuse.
Issues: Whether the Claimant's dismissal was justified and whether the misconduct was proven.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the Claimant's actions constituted serious misconduct, justifying dismissal, and that the Company followed proper procedures.
Result: Claim dismissed.
AWARD
A. Reference
[1] This is a reference by the Director General of Industrial Relations Malaysia of Human Resources under s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 ("the IRA 1967") arising out of the dismissal of Rahim Bin Latuo (hereinafter referred to as "the Claimant") by FGV Refineries Sdn Bhd (herein referred to as "the Company").
B. Preface
[2] This Ministerial reference required this Court to hear and determine the Claimant's complaint of dismissal by the Company with effect from 29 December 2012.
[3] The Claimant commenced his employment with the Company as a Clerk 2 December 1996 and based at Sahabat Oil Products (hereinafter referred to as SOP).
[4] This present case relates specifically on the alleged misconducts of receiving money from the canteen operator of the Company by the Claimant during his employment as Financial Clerk at SOP.
[5] Consequently, a Show Court letter dated 7 September 2020 was issued against the Claimant which stated that the Claimant had allegedly committed two serious misconducts. Vide a letter to the Company dated 11 September 2020, the Claimant replied to said Show Cause Letter.
[6] After reviewing the Claimant's reply to the show cause letter, the Company issued a letter of "Pertuduhan Bagi Maksud Menguruskan Tindakan Tatatertib" dated 2 November 2021 to the Claimant and decided to conduct a Domestic Inquiry in order to provide the Claimant an opportunity to further render his explanation before an independent Panel of Inquiry. The Company also notified the Claimant that he was suspended from work for 14 days from 3 November 2021 to 16 November 2021.
[7] The allegation of misconducts against the Claimant are as follows:
1st Charge - The Claimant had on 21 December 2020 until 30 April 2016 received money amounting to RM11,500.00 from the canteen operator, Puan Yan @ 0m Bte Salleh, where the said money was requested by the Claimant, and the said money was transferred into the Claimant's personal bank account via online transaction.
2nd Charge - The Claimant had on 17 September 2015 until 3 June 2016 used the money received from the canteen operator to purchase gifts for SOP's visitors which was not according to the Company's policy and without having a complete transaction record.
[8] The Claimant attended the Domestic Inquiry on 10 November 2021. He pleaded guilty to the 1st and 2nd Charges. After the conclusion of the Domestic Inquiry, the panel of Domestic Inquiry found the Claimant guilty to the both charges. Based on the Domestic Inquiry Panel Record dated 10 November 2021 [Exhibit COB(15-22)], the said panel had decided that the Claimant is indeed guilty for requesting and receiving money from the canteen operator, and for using the said money without having a complete transaction record;
[9] The Company decided to terminate the Claimant's employment with immediate effect vide a Letter of Dismissal dated 29 December 2021 which inter alia stated that:
"Jawatankuasa Tindakan Tatatertib yang bersidang pada 23 Disember 2021 telah menyemak dan meneliti segala rekod, dokumen yang berkaitan dengan kes saudara. Pihak pengurusan telah mengambil maklum cadangan yang diberikan oleh Jawatankuasa Siasatan Dalaman dan dengan ini pihak pengurusan mengambil keputusan untuk menjatuhkan hukuman DISINGKIRKAN kepada saudara berkuatkuasa mulai 29 Disember 2021......saudara adalah berhak membuat rayuan untuk dipertimbangkan semula hukuman yang telah dikenakan ke atas saudara....... Dalam tempoh empat belas (14) hari dari tarikh surat ini."
[10] The Claimant vide a letter dated 5 January 2022, issued an appeal against his dismissal from the Company. However, the appeal was rejected by the Company. The Claimant submits that he was unlawfully terminated and that his dismissal by the Company was without just cause or excuse.
[11] The Company however states that the termination of the Claimant employment was lawful with just cause or excuse. The Company prays for the punishment of dismissal to be uphel
