Back
2024 MarsdenLR 2889
INDUSTRIAL COURT KUALA LUMPUR
POONJELIAN CHANDRAN – Appellant
Versus
SUNSHINE BREAD SDN BHD – Respondent
Award No: 387 Of 2024 [Case No: 14/4-1315/22]
The dismissal of an employee for serious misconduct, including dishonesty and insubordination, is justified when the employer proves just cause under the Industrial Relations Act 1967.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Section 20(3) - Dismissal for serious misconduct - Claimant dismissed for instructing subordinates to falsify production checklist and concealing errors - Court found dismissal was with just cause and excuse based on established misconduct. (Paras 30, 34, 42, 65)
(B) Burden of Proof - Employer must establish misconduct for dismissal - Claimant's dishonesty and failure to report misconduct deemed serious enough to justify termination. (Paras 32, 54)
(C) Procedural Fairness - Claimant admitted guilt during domestic inquiry and was given opportunity to defend himself, thus procedural irregularities were not substantiated. (Paras 46, 51)
Facts of the case:
The Claimant was dismissed from his position after being found guilty of serious misconduct involving falsification of production documents and failure to report errors, which misled the Company regarding product safety. (Paras 18, 28, 34)
Findings of Court:
The Claimant's actions constituted grave misconduct that undermined the trust required for his position, leading to a justified dismissal. (Paras 54, 64)
Issues: Whether the Claimant's dismissal was with just cause or excuse, and whether the domestic inquiry was conducted fairly. (Paras 34, 65)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Claimant's actions represented a serious breach of trust and duty, justifying termination of employment. (Paras 42, 64)
Result: Claim dismissed.
AWARD
Reference
[1] This is a reference under s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (the Act) by the Director General of Industrial Relations, emanates from the dismissal of Poonjelian a/l Chandran ("the Claimant") by Sunshine Bread Sdn Bhd ("the Company") on 22 February 2022
Preamble
[2] This Court had considered the notes of proceedings and the following pleadings, evidence, documents and submissions in handing down this Award:
(i) Statement of Case dated 9 December 2022;
(ii) Statement in Reply dated 9 February 2023;
(iii) Rejoinder dated 20 February 2023;
(iv) Claimant's Bundle of Documents: CLB-1;
(v) Claimant's Additional Bundle of Documents: CLB-2;
(vi) Company's Bundle of Documents: COB-1;
(vii) Company's Additional Bundle of Documents: COB-2;
(viii) Witness Statement of Jagan a/l Pichakaran: COWS-1;
(ix) Witness Statement of Puvana a/p Anbualagan: COWS-2;
(x) Witness Statement of Ramesh a/l Gengan: COWS-3;
(xi) Witness Statement of the Claimant, Poonjelian a/l Chandran: CLWS-1A;
(xii) Supplementary Witness Statement of the Claimant, Poonjelian a/l Chandran: CLWS-1B;
(xiii) The Company's Written Submission dated 16 November 2023;
(xiv) The Claimant's Submission dated 10 November 2023;
(xv) The Company's Written Submission In Reply dated 6 December 2023; and
(xvi) The Claimant's Written Submission In Reply dated 8 December 2023.
The Company's Case
[3] The Company issued an offer letter dated 18 May 2021 to the Claimant, The Claimant then commenced his employment as a Production Executive at Production Department with the Company on 1 June 2021 with a salary of RM4,750.00 per month and a fixed travelling allowance of RM150.00 per month. From the date of his commencement on 1 June 2021, the Claimant was based at "Combo Line."
[4] The offer letter dated 18 May 2021 also explicitly states the job scope and responsibilities expected of him as a Production Executive. The Claimant was confirmed in his position via a letter of confirmation as a production executive dated 9 November 2021
[5] The incident that brought about this claim occurred on 26 October 2021. On 26 October 2021, the then Head of Department, one Mr Eeswaran forwarded messages of complaints received from the Singapore Sales Team to the Claimant and one Mr Kishen. The complaint was that the raisin buns produced, packed and sent to Singapore on 26 October 2021 had "kwik-loks" (the plastic yellow tab used to close plastic wrappers containing bread) with the expiry date printed as 30 September 2021, instead of the correct expiry date which is date of 30 October 2021. This would mean that any buyer who purchased the buns on 26 October 2021 will consider that the buns that were sold were way past the expiry date.
[6] Due to this, Mr Eeswaran required an investigation to be carried out by the Claimant and for the Claimant to subsequently inform him of the findings the following morning, that is on 27 October 2021.
[7] On the same day, on 26 October 2021, the Claimant then proceeded to ask one Ms Puvana (COW-2), the then acting team lead regarding the incident and requested COW-2 to take a picture of the Production Kwik-Loks checklist. COW-2 then sent the Claimant a picture of the raisin bun product with the expiry date. This was followed by a picture of the Production Kwik-Loks Checklist via WhatsApp. The Claimant sent another WhatsApp message on the same day claiming that there were errors on the checklist dated 24 October 2021 at column 2 and column 3. The errors were that the "use by" date printed on the kwik-loks were 30 September 2021.
[8] The Claimant was made fully aware of this mistake after receiving the said production checklist from COW-2. However, instead of reporting this error to the Company as requested by the said Mr Eeswaran, the Claimant instructed COW-2 to replace the wrongly printed kwik-loks dates by printing new copies of kwik-loks and placing them on the Production Checklist Form. The only reason this was done was to give a false impression that there
