Back
2025 MarsdenLR 647
INDUSTRIAL COURT MALAYSIA
VANITHAMANY A/P SIVALINGAM, CHAIRMAN
Hairol Nizam Bin Mohamed Soldi – Appellant
Versus
Nestle Manufacturing (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd. – Respondent
7/4-2702/21
An employer bears the burden of proving misconduct on a balance of probabilities. Dismissal requires that the punishment is proportionate to the gravity of the proven offense, necessitating a balanced consideration of the employee's tenure and the specific circumstances surrounding the alleged breaches.
Headnote:(A) Employment Law - Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Section 20(3) - Unfair dismissal - Burden of proof - Employer must prove just cause or excuse for dismissal on a balance of probabilities. (Paras 16, 17, 19)
(B) Misconduct - Domestic inquiry - Findings are not binding on court - Court determines fairness based on entirety of evidence - Proportionality of punishment - Punishment must be commensurate with the gravity of the offense - Doctrine of proportionality applied to determine if dismissal is excessive in view of employee’s record and nature of wrongdoing. (Paras 23, 44, 46)
Facts of the case:
An employee was dismissed for alleged failure to undergo mandatory health screening, falsification of a medical document, and unauthorized entry to work premises. The employee contended that the failure to undergo the test was due to being on medical leave and denied the charges of falsification and unauthorized entry. The employer relied on internal inquiry findings conducted prior to termination.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the employer failed to prove several allegations on a balance of probabilities, particularly those relating to document forgery and prohibited entry. While some minor procedural breaches were established, the court found the sanction of dismissal to be disproportionately harsh given the employee’s long service tenure and absence of prior disciplinary issues.
Issues: The main issues were whether the alleged misconduct had been established and whether the dismissal was conducted with just cause or excuse.
Ratio Decidendi: While the burden of proof rests on the employer to justify the dismissal, the court found that the evidence provided was insufficient to substantiate all charges. The court further emphasized the requirement to strike a balance between the severity of the conduct and the sanction imposed, concluding that dismissal was not a proportionate response to the proven faults.
Result: Claim allowed; compensation in lieu of reinstatement ordered.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claimant's version of events surrounding dismissal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. company's assertions regarding procedural breach and misconduct. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. burden of proof lies on the employer regarding just cause. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. defining misconduct in industrial relations jurisprudence. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 5. analysis of the first charge: allegations of illegal entry. (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 6. analysis of the second charge: falsely claiming attendance at antigen test. (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 7. analysis of the third charge: alleged forgery of medical documents. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 8. analysis of the fourth charge: confirming pattern of deceit. (Para 39 , 40) |
| 9. analysis of the fifth charge and the proportionality of dismissal. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47) |
| 10. final determination of unfair dismissal due to lack of evidence. (Para 48) |
| 11. calculation of compensation, back wages, and deductions for contribution. (Para 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53) |
REFERENCE
This is a reference by the Director General of Industrial Relations to this Industrial Court under Section 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (“The Act”) arising out of the alleged unlawful termination of HAIROL NIZAM BIN MOHAMED SOLDI (“the Claimant”) by his employer, NESTLE MANUFACTURING (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD (“Company”)
This Court takes cognizance of the following bundles, statements, submission, and cause papers filed.
DOCUMENTS IN COURT FILES
I. Statement of case dated - 13.12.2021.
II. Statement of reply dated - 24.01.2022.
III. Rejoinder dated - 16.03.2023.
IV. Claimant’s Bundle of Document - (CLB1)
V. Company’s Bundle of Document - (COB1, COB2, COB3)
VI. Witness Statement of the Claimant – HAIROL NIZAM BIN MOHAMED SOLDI (CLWS1)
VII. Witness Statement of the Company – ZULHAZMI BIN IDRIS (COWS1)
VIII. Witness Statement of the Company – MOHAMAD BIN BAKAR (COWS2)
IX. Witness Statement of the Company – PRABAGARAN NADARAJAH (COWS3)
X. Witness Statement of the Company – MUHAMMAD HAMDI BIN SAMSUDIN (COWS4)
XI. Company’s Written Submission dated - 30.05.2025
XII. Claimant’s Written Submission dated - 26.05.2025
XIII. Company’s Written Submission in Reply dated - 16.06.2025
XIV. Claimant’s Written Submission in Reply dated - 23.06.2025
XV. Company’s Bundle of Authorities
XVI. Claimant’s Bundle of Authorities
XVII. Company’s Supplementary Bundle
BRIEF FACTS
CLAIMANT’S CASE
[1] The Claimant joined the Company on 15.9.1997 as Forklift Driver with a salary of RM 515.00. The Claimant was the Reach Truck Driver when he was dismissed and reported to Mr. Mohamad Bin Bakar (COW2), being the Senior Warehouse executive of the Company. The Claimant’s last drawn salary was RM3,743.00 and in addition he was also paid shift and meals allowances.
[2] On 31.1.2021, the Claimant was served with a show cause letter dated 29.1.2021 with 5 allegations contained. The 5 allegations were;
i) Pada 26.1.2021, anda telah dijadualkan untuk mengambil Ujian Antigen secara berkumpulan tetapi anda gagal menghadirkan diri untuk Ujian tersebut. Kegagalan anda ini telah mengakibatkan anda memasuki tempat kerja dengan cara yang tak sah pada 29.1.2021 lebih kurang 7.00 pagi.
ii) Pada 29.1.2021, ana telah memaklumkan dan mengaku kepada penyelia anda bahawa anda telah menghadirkan diri untuk Ujian Antigen pada 26.1.2021 sedangkan mengikut rekod kehadiran Ujian Antigen daripada bahagian sumber manusia anda tidak menghadirkan diri pada hari tersebut.
iii) Pada 29.1.2021, anda didapati telah menipu penyelia anda dengan menyerahkan dokumen yang palsu. Anda didapati menukar tarikh di dalam dokumen Ujian Antigen daripada 20.1.2021 ke 26.1.2021 walaupun dua dua dokumen tersebut mempunyai masa dan no siri yang sama.
iv) Anda didapati terus menipu penyelia anda ketika disoal siasat dengan pengakuan bahawa anda menghadirkan diri pada Ujian Antigen berkumpulan dan keputusan tesebut adalah bertarikh 26.1.2021.
v) Anda juga didapati memasuki NDC tanpa kebenaran
