Back
2022 MarsdenLR 2853
INDUSTRIAL COURT KUALA LUMPUR
SAIFUDDIN SHAH SOWKKATALI – Appellant
Versus
PETROLIAM NASIONAL BERHAD (PETRONAS) – Respondent
Award No: 467 Of 2022 [Case No: 6(15)/4-1383/20]
An employer must prove just cause for termination, with the burden on them to show misconduct that justifies dismissal, particularly involving conflicts of interest and ethical breaches.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Section 20 - Dismissal of employee - The Claimant was dismissed for conflict of interest involving relatives in hiring processes and misclassification of workplace incidents, violating the company’s Code of Conduct. The Company had established a prima facie case of misconduct against the Claimant, who failed to disclose his relationships, and the disciplinary process adhered to natural justice principles. (Paras 36, 39, 155-164)
(B)
Burden of Proof - The burden lies with the employer to prove wrongful dismissal, which the Company successfully met through documented evidence and witness testimonies regarding the Claimant's misconduct. (Paras 37, 161)
(C)
Just Cause for Dismissal - The dismissal was justified due to the serious nature of misconduct that breached trust and the Company’s policies. The Court finds the punishment proportionate. (Paras 164, 166)
Facts of the case:
The Claimant, employed in various capacities since 1990, was found to have committed multiple charges involving conflict of interest and failure to accurately report workplace incidents, leading to his dismissal. The claims included nepotism in hiring and mishandling of accident classifications.
Findings of Court:
The court affirmed the Company’s right to dismiss the Claimant based on proven misconduct, emphasizing the serious implications for safety and transparency within the Company.
Issues
: Whether the Claimant’s dismissal was justified given the nature of the allegations and the veracity of the Company’s claims.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Court ruled the dismissal appropriate considering the Claimant’s high-ranking position and the serious ethical and legal breaches involved, affirming that just cause existed for dismissal.
Result:
Claimant's case dismissed.
AWARD
Reference
[1] The is a reference dated 5 July 2020 from the Minister of Human Resources Malaysia pursuant to s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 regarding the dismissal of Saifuddin Shah bin Sowkkatali ("Claimant") by Petroliam Nasional Berhad (PETRONAS) ("Company") on the 13 January 2020.
Background Facts
[2] The Claimant commenced employment with PETRONAS Penapisan (Melaka) Sdn Bhd, with effect from 16 January 1990 as a Production Specialist.
[3] The Claimant was transferred to Petronas Technical Services as the Head of Health, Safety and Environment ("HSE") effective 1 April 2013 and the Claimant was then appointed as Head (Health, Safety, Environment and Security) ("HSES") with PETRONAS Refinery & Petrochemical Corporation Sdn Bhd ("PRPC").
[4] After his retirement, the Claimant was employed by the Company on a fixed term contract vide letter dated 9 April 2018, the Claimant was seconded to PRPC as its Head (HSES).
[5] Sometime in April 2019, it was brought to the Company's attention that the Claimant was alleged to have acted in conflict of interest and in breach of the Company's policies. As a result, thereto, the Company commenced investigations and the Claimant was suspended.
[6] Pursuant to the Company's investigations, the Company issued a show cause letter dated 22 July 2019 to the Claimant where the Claimant replied to the show cause letter via his letter dated 25 July 2019.
[7] The Company being unsatisfied with the Claimant's reply, decided to convene a Domestic Inquiry ("DI") against the Claimant.
[8] The DI was conducted against the Claimant with 17 Charges of misconduct levelled against him.
[9] The DI panels found the Claimant guilty of all of 17 Charges against the Claimant.
[10] The Company dismissed the Claimant with immediate effect via its letter dated 13 January 2020.
[11] The Claimant appealed against the dismissal decision of the Company but the Company did not consider his appeal and maintained its decision of dismissing the Claimant.
The Company's Case
[12] The Claimant was dismissed on the 17 Charges levelled against him at the DI as in COB-1 pp 27 to 38.
[13] In respect of Charges 1 to 5, the Company avers that the charges were in relation to the Claimant's actions of being in conflict of interest when he failed to notify the Company of the appointment of several individuals in which were the Claimant's direct relatives, relative by marriage or associates.
[14] The Company further avers the following:
i. All the identified individuals who were the Claimant's direct relatives, relatives by marriage or associates, were eventually placed under CEFS which was under the supervision and/or control of the Claimant, by virtue of his position as Head of HSES;
ii. The Claimant was carrying his duty and/or role as a hiring manager and was involved in the hiring, supervision and management in respect of the relatives as evidenced from the list of candidates to be hired and approved by him;
iii. That the Claimant had initiated the Intent to hire ("ITH") and was aware of the names submitted and recommended/ endorsed the same by signing his initial as HOD for onward approval by the Approving Authority;
iv. The Claimant had an opportunity to inform and/or declare the potential conflict of interest situation to Human Resource Department prior and/or at the time of the renewal of the individuals' contact during the Intent to Renew ("ITR") but omitted to do so; and
v. The Claimant had influenced the interviewers to consider the recruitment of Mohamed Danial Bin Nordin (Danial) despite the interviewers' initial recommendation not to consider Danial for employment for the position.
[15] The Company avers that the conflict of interest of the Claimant was a serious misconduct where he was under a duty to notify the Company, PRPC and/or his superiors in respect of any potential conflict of interest but the Claimant failed to do so up until the Company's investigations commenced in April 2019.
[16] As for Charges
