Back
2024 MarsdenLR 1965
INDUSTRIAL COURT MALAYSIA
M Ananthan A/L Muniandy – Appellant
Versus
HS Optimus Wood Products Sdn. Bhd. (Formerly known as KLW Wood Products (M) Sdn. Bhd.) – Respondent
8(16)/4-250/20
An employer is justified in summarily terminating an employee for serious misconduct, including using derogatory language towards superiors and providing dishonest project information, as these breaches fundamentally destroy the implied duty of trust and confidence, rendering the maintenance of the employment relationship unreasonable.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Section 20(3) - Dismissal of employee - Misconduct - Just cause and excuse - Proof on balance of probabilities - Role of Court in determining reasonableness - Digital evidence such as instant messaging logs - Implied duty of mutual trust and confidence.
(B) Misconduct - Use of vulgar, abusive, and derogatory language towards superiors in group communications - Whether such acts constitute major misconduct warranting termination - Whether apologies mitigate the severity of disciplinary breaches - Applicability of the 'reasonable test' in evaluating summary termination - Whether admission of conduct renders absence of secondary evidence non-fatal - Proportionality of punishment for managerial personnel.
Facts of the case:
A managerial employee was dismissed following a domestic inquiry regarding three charges: using vulgar and disrespectful language towards superiors in a group chat, unprofessional behavior during a telephone conversation, and providing misleading information to a client regarding project deadlines. The claimant challenged the termination as unfair, citing his long service record and subsequent apologies, while the employer maintained that the conduct irreparably damaged the professional relationship.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the employer had established the charges on a balance of probabilities. It found that the use of abusive language and dishonest representation towards a client fundamentally breached the implied duty of trust and confidence. The court held that for managerial staff, such behavior is particularly egregious and that apologies do not excuse conduct that renders an employment relationship untenable.
Issues: The central questions were whether the evidence sufficiently supported the alleged breaches, whether the actions provided just cause for summary termination, and whether the punishment was proportionate given the claimant's seniority and attempts to apologize.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an employee’s actions—specifically the use of derogatory language towards superiors and dishonesty toward clients—fundamentally undermine the bond of trust and confidence, the employer is entitled to terminate the service. Such conduct is irreconcilable with managerial obligations, and personal apologies are insufficient to mitigate the impact of serious professional indiscipline.
Result: The claim was dismissed; the court ruled the termination was with just cause and excuse.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishing the court's role and the burden of proof in dismissal cases. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 2. factual background involving employment, charges of misconduct, and the dismissal event. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. parties' contentions regarding the allegations and procedural fairness. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 4. assessment of evidence and proof for the three charges of misconduct. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52) |
| 5. proportionality of dismissal as a remedy for proved serious misconduct. (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76) |
| 6. procedural adherence regarding pleadings and domestic inquiry irregularities. (Para 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81) |
| 7. final determination that dismissal was with just cause. (Para 82 , 83) |
AWARD
THE REFERENCE
This is an order of reference dated 17.12.2019 by the Honourable Minister of Human Resources pursuant to subsection 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 arising out of the alleged dismissal of M ANATHAN A/L MUNIANDY (the Claimant) by HS OPTIMUS WOOD PRODUCTS SDN BHD (Formerly Known As KLW Wood Products (M) Sdn. Bhd.) (the Respondent) on 11.09.2019.
ROLES AND FUNCTIONS OF THE COURT
[1] It is a trite law that the role of this Court is two-fold. Firstly, to determine whether the misconduct complained of by the employer has been
established, and secondly whether the proven misconduct constitutes just cause or excuse for the dismissal (see Wong Chee Hong v. Cathay Organisation Malaysia Sdn Bhd [1988] 1 CLJ Rep 298; Milan Auto Sdn Bhd v. Wong Seh Yen [1995] 4 CLJ 449; K A Sanduran Nehru Ratnam v. I-Berhad [2007] 1 CLJ 347).
[2] The burden of proof lies with the employer in proving that he has just cause or excuse for making the decision and not for the employee to prove otherwise (see Ireka Construction Berhad v Chantiravathan Subramaniam James [1995] 2 ILR 11 (Award No. 245 of 1995)).
[3] As regards the standard of proof to prove case in this Court is on a balance of probabilities that is the civil standard, which is flexible, so that the degree of probability required is proportionate to the nature of gravity of the issue, as decided in Telekom Malaysia Kawasan Utara v. Krishnan Kutty Sanguni Nair & Anor [2002] 3 CLJ 314, where His Lordship Justice Abdul Hamid Mohamad JCA held: “Thus, we can see that the preponderant view is that the Industrial Court, when hearing a claim of unjust dismissal, even where the ground is one of dishonest act, including “theft”, is not required to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the employee has “committed” the offence, as in a criminal prosecution.”
[4] The test that is applied to a straightforward summary dismissal like this case is “reasonable test”. Reasonable test has been expounded by Salleh Abas FCJ (as he then was) in the case of Preston Corp Sdn
Bhd v. Edward Leong Nim Fay & Ors [1982] CLJ 302; [1982] CLJ (Rep) 272; [1982] 2 MLJ 22 as below:
“The test of reasonableness is what a reasonable, honest and right-minded person considers the usage concerned to be fair and proper. A usage which outrages the sense of justice and commonsense is not reasonable: Produce Broker Co. Ltd v. Olympia Oil and Cake Co. Ltd. The test therefore is one which refers to the normal and ordinary value judgment of a reasonable man.”
[5] In the recent Federal Court’s decision, in the case of Tan Lay Peng v. RHB Bank Bhd & Anor [2024] 2 ILR 535 where Nordin Hasan FCJ delivering the judgment of the court:
“On the issue of reasonableness, generally, what is reasonable is what a reasonable man considers fair and proper based on the particular facts and circumstances of the case.”
CAUSE PAPER AND DOCUMENTS
[6] The pleadings and documents that have been relied on by the parties are as follows:
6.1 Statement of Case dated 9.3
