An employee on probation enjoys protection under industrial law and cannot be dismissed without just cause or excuse, as established in the Industrial Relations Act 1967.

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 Anne Adeline a/p Anthony Raju (hereinafter referred to as "the Claimant") by Seri Anggun Condominium JMB (hereinafter referred to as "the JMB") on 26 September 2021.

[2] The reference by the Director General of Industrial Relations in this case required the Court to hear and determine the Claimant's complaint of dismissal by the JMB on 26 September 2021.

I. Procedural History

[3] The Court received the letter pertaining to the reference by the Director General Of Industrial Relations under s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 on 14 September 2022.

[4] The matter was fixed for mention on 19 October 2022, 7 December 2022, 5 January 2023, 5 March 2023 and 12 May 2023.

[5] The trial commenced on 12 June 2023 and concluded on 27 June 2023.

II. Parties' Position On The Merits

a. The Claimant

[6] The Claimant commenced her employment as an Accounts and Admin Executive with the JMB on 3 February 2021. She was placed on a 3 months probationary period.

[7] During this time, the Claimant was a well-performing employee as reflected by the number of improvements to the condominium maintenance ever since the Claimant was employed. The Claimant was also praised for her work on numerous occasions by the JMB Committee and by owners who owned units in the Seri Anggun Condominium.

[8] The Claimant undertook responsibilities in a supportive role in the office administration at the management office, to monitor and manage operations of service providers, keeping track of contract agreements, water meter readings, water meter migrations, releasing payments for approved bills, and salaries, and handling client complaints and enquiries.

[9] The Claimant conducted inspections on building defects, maintenance, and the update of notices and finally conducted bank reconciliation and depositing of cash received into the bank. All the time, the Claimant kept the JMB informed of all activities.

[10] The Claimant contends that she had often went over and beyond her responsibilities and had managed to improve the collection rate of the sinking and maintenance fund owed by owners to the JMB. This allowed the Claimant, with the approval of the JMB Committee, to settle the outstanding amounts that were owed by the JMB to the sinking fund amongst which were the settlement of amounts owed to the utilities, the TNB utility bills and Air Selangor bills. The Claimant's efforts also saw her able to settle the outstanding employees' EPF contributions and SOCSO contributions which were remitted to the relevant Governmental bodies by the Claimant. The Claimant had the resourcefulness to obtain certain discounts for the JMB by appealing up to 80% from SOCSO.

[11] Throughout the Claimant's employment in the JMB management's office, she identified several discrepancies in the management of the office, incomplete issuances of receipt vouchers for online payments, receipt vouchers voided for cash payments, monthly bank reconciliation not conducted, petty cash reimbursements without proper receipts, payment of bills, contracts not updated. Further discrepancies in the JMB management's office were incomplete filing of documents, missing invoices, receipts, etc.

[12] The Claimant contends that throughout her