SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 MarsdenLR 1969

INDUSTRIAL COURT PERAK
MADIAHLAGAN SUNDARAM – Appellant
Versus
LOTUSS STORES (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD – Respondent
Award No: 1923 Of 2023 [Case No: 10/4-441/22]



Petitioner Advocates:Ayleswary Bathamanathan ,Respondent Advocate: Vijayan Venugopal

Dismissal upheld for serious misconduct as inappropriate WhatsApp messages sent by a superior constituted sexual harassment, justifying the termination despite procedural irregularities.

Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Section 20(3) - Dismissal of employee - Claimant dismissed for alleged sexual harassment via inappropriate WhatsApp messages to subordinates - Claimant's long service and previous good performance noted but dismissed for serious misconduct - Company failed to conduct a domestic inquiry prior to dismissal but Court found procedural irregularity curable at hearing - Claimant's admission of sending messages deemed sufficient for dismissal - Dismissal upheld as just cause. (Paras 1, 34, 100, 102)

(B) Sexual Harassment - Definition and standards - Inappropriate WhatsApp messages sent by superior to subordinates constituted sexual harassment under the Company's Code of Practice - Silence of victims does not equate to acquiescence - Court affirmed employer's duty to provide a safe workplace free from harassment. (Paras 84, 92)

Facts of the case:
The Claimant was dismissed by the Company on 26 April 2021 for sending inappropriate WhatsApp messages to two subordinates, which were deemed sexual in nature. The Claimant contended that he was not afforded a fair hearing and that the complaints were unfounded. (Paras 2, 11, 12)

Findings of Court:
The Court found that the Claimant's actions amounted to serious misconduct and that the Company had just cause for dismissal despite procedural irregularities in the inquiry process. (Paras 100, 102)

Issues: The main issues were whether the Claimant's actions constituted misconduct and whether the dismissal was with just cause or excuse. (Paras 38)

Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the Claimant's admission of sending inappropriate messages to subordinates warranted dismissal, affirming that silence from victims does not indicate consent and that the employer must maintain a harassment-free workplace. (Paras 100, 102)

Result: Claimant's claim dismissed.

Table of Content
1. alleged unlawful dismissal details (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 9 , 10)
2. claimant's arguments against dismissal (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
3. company's case and evidence (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
4. court's analysis and findings (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98)
5. justification of dismissal (Para 99 , 100)
6. final judgment and order (Para 101)
Zulhelmy Hasan:

Reference

[1] This is a reference by The Director General of Human Resource Department pursuant to s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 dated 28 January 2022 which was received by the Industrial Court of Malaysia on 10 February 2022 arising out of the alleged dismissal of Madiahlagan A/L Sundaram (hereinafter referred to as "the Claimant") by Lotuss Stores (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd (hereinafter referred to as "the Company") on 26 April 2021.

Factual Backgrounds

[2] The dispute in this case is over the unlawful dismissal of the Claimant with effect from 26 April 2021 without just cause or excuse. By way of a letter dated 6 September 20014 (at pp 3-7 of COB-1), the Claimant commenced employment with the Company on 11 October 2004 as a Section Manager and later after he was confirmed in employment, he was eventually being promoted several times until his last designation prior to the dismissal was as a Store General Manager and was based at Company's outlet at Lotuss Kampar, Perak with his last drawn basic salary of RM10,050.00 per calendar month.

[3] The Company is involved in a business of supermarket retail chains outlet throughout the country. Sometimes in 2021, the Company changed its name from Tesco to Lotuss Stores (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd, the Company in the present case. At the material time, the Claimant was more commonly known as "Edwin" among his colleagues and his subordinates in the Company.

[4] Sometimes around March 2021, the Company received reports that the Claimant may have acted in breach of his express and/or implied duties by sending inappropriate WhatsApp messages to employees of a subordinate position (at pp 3-14 of COB-2), which may amount to sexual harassment. As the allegations were serious in nature, the Company conducted further investigation in order to determine the veracity of the same including to secure the necessary documents and conducted interview the employees including with the Claimant.

[5] An interview was scheduled with the Claimant on 30 March 2021, whereby the Claimant was required to present himself at Lotuss Head Office at Kepong, Kuala Lumpur to attend before Mr Richard Leonard, the Safety, Security and Resilience Director upon investigation in respect of complaints of misconduct for some inappropriate WhatsApp messages alleged to be sent by the Claimant to Nursufiah Sani Binti Harunarrashit on 14 February 2021 and to Khairulnizam Bin Md Hisham on 25 December 2020, 26 December 2020 and 30 December 2020. The Company regarded the WhatsApp messages as amounting to "inappropriate" and tantamount to "sexual harassment", which is serious misconduct and is breach of the Company's rules and regulations.

[6] Pursuant to the interview session, the Company decided to suspend the Claimant pending further investigations of the matter. The Claimant was suspended on half pay vide the letter dated 30 March 2021 (at pages 11-12 of COB-1) whereby it was mentioned that the suspension period of the Claimant commenced from 31 March 2021 until 13 April 2021. Subsequently, the Claimant received a show cause letter dated 8 April 2021 (at pp 22-23 of COB-1) and the Claimant had replied vide letter of reply dated 15 April 2021 (at pp 25-26 of COB-1) to the said show cause letter.

[7] Pursuant to its pr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top