Back
2024 MarsdenLR 516
INDUSTRIAL COURT KUALA LUMPUR
MOHD RAMZI MUEN – Appellant
Versus
SEPANG AIRCRAFT ENGINEERING SDN BHD – Respondent
Award No: 41 Of 2024 [Case No: 3/4-1834/20]
The dismissal of an employee for negligence in a specialized field is justified when the employee fails to meet the high standards of care required by their profession.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Subsection 20(3) - Dismissal of employee - Claimant terminated for alleged negligence in duties as Licensed Aircraft Engineer - Court examined evidence and established that dismissal was with just cause - The Claimant's contention of honest mistake not sufficient to negate negligence. (Paras 11, 12, 15, 41, 49)
(B) Natural Justice - Court noted absence of domestic inquiry but found investigation sufficient to satisfy principles of natural justice as both parties were heard. (Paras 33, 38)
(C) Doctrine of Proportionality - Court upheld that the gravity of the misconduct justified the Company's action, emphasizing the heightened duty of care owed by professional engineers. (Paras 42, 46, 48)
Facts of the case:
Claimant, a Licensed Aircraft Engineer, was dismissed for negligence in following procedures in aircraft maintenance, despite a 12-year record of service. The Company claimed previous misconduct influenced the decision.
Findings of Court:
The Court concluded that the Claimant was dismissed with just cause and the investigation conducted was adequate.
Issues: Whether the dismissal was with just cause or excuse and if natural justice was observed.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the Claimant's negligence warranted dismissal, emphasizing the professional standards expected of engineers.
Result: Claimant's dismissal upheld.
AWARD
Reference
[1] This is a reference dated 30 July 2020 made by the Minister of Human Resources pursuant to subsection 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 [Act 177] arising out of the dismissal of Mohd Ramzi bin Muen ("the Claimant") by Sepang Aircraft Engineering Sdn Bhd ("the Company") on 29 February 2020.
Brief Facts
[2] The Claimant was appointed as a Licensed Aircraft Engineer by the Company on 27 August 2007 via a letter dated 2 July 2007. The Claimant was terminated on 29 February 2020 via a letter dated 10 February 2020. At the time of the termination the Claimant was holding the post of Lead Engineer and drawing a monthly basic salary of RM16,146.00 and a fixed license premium allowance of RM700.00 and meal allowance of RM100.00.
[3] The Claimant filed a representation to the Minister of Human Resources and the Minister duly issued the referral on 30 July 2020 claiming that he was terminated without just cause or excuse.
[4] The Company's contention that the Claimant was terminated for misconduct due to negligence. This is of course refuted by the Claimant.
[5] 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) Statement of Case dated 12 October 2020;
(ii) Company's Statement in Reply dated 3 November 2020;
(iii) Rejoinder dated 24 November 2020;
(iv) Claimant's Bundle of Documents filed on 12 October 2020 marked as exhibit CLB-1;
(v) Company's Bundle of Documents filed on 4 November 2020 marked as exhibit COB-1;
(vi) Company's Bundle of Documents (2) filed on 7 April 2023 marked as exhibit COB-2;
(vii) Company's Witness Statement (Ahmad Nubhan Mohd Ali) signed on 20 April 2022 marked as exhibit COWS-1;
(viii) Company's Witness Statement (Mohd Adree bin Mohd Yunus) signed on 20 April 2022 marked as exhibit COWS-2;
(ix) Company's Witness Statement (Romizan Abang Hipni) signed on 21 April 2022 marked as exhibit COWS-3;
(x) Company's Witness Statement (Wan Anita binti Mohd Zaki) signed on 21 April 2022 marked as exhibit COWS-4;
(xi) Pernyataan Saksi Pihak Yang Menuntut signed on 23 May 2023 marked as exhibit CLWS;
(xii) Nota Prosiding filed on 29 September 2023;
(xiii) Company's Written Submission dated 7 September 2023;
(xiv) Company's Bundle of Authorities filed on 8 September 2023;
(xv) Claimant's Written Submissions dated 7 September 2023;
(xvi) Claimant's Bundle of Authorities filed on 8 September 2023;
(xvii) Claimant's Written Submission in Reply & Additional Bundle of Authorities dated 29 September 2023.
(xviii) Company's Written Submission in Reply dated 29 September 2023; and
(xix) Company's Bundle of Authorities (2) dated 3 October 2023.
The Decision
The Chair And The Role Of The Court
[6] Before proceeding with the full award, it should be expressly stated that the original Chairperson of the Court has been transferred and this award is being given by the new Chairman. The new Chair took over the case at the penultimate stage of the case. Nonetheless, this Court has already decided in earlier cases its position regarding the issue of taking over from another Chair, some of those cases are the cases of Badariah Abdullah lwn. Malaysia Airports (Sepang) Sdn Bhd, Nor Azlina Abd Rahim lwn. Jurukur Perunding Services Sdn Bhd and Chong Jee Fatt v. Tee E & C (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd; [2023] 3 ILR 204 . In those awards this Court referred to the case of Bax Global (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v. Sukhdev Singh Pritam Singh & Anor, [2011] 2 CLJ 534 and subsection 23(6) Act 177.
[7] It would not be prudent to repeat the same and as such, parties are welcome to view the said case for an explanation why the Chair proceeded in completing this case. Suffice that the Chair was confident in the belief that the Award would not be prejudiced by the change of the chairman of the Court.
[8] Similarly, the Court reiterates its stand in all three of the above cases of Badariah, Nor Azl
