Back
2024 MarsdenLR 2127
INDUSTRIAL COURT MALAYSIA
Mazuna Begum Binti Kadir Mira – Appellant
Versus
Malaysia Airlines Berhad – Respondent
4/4-1443/22
Dismissal for refusing a mandatory workplace health policy is justified if the policy is lawful, reasonable, and necessary for ensuring occupational and public safety. Without valid medical exemption, such non-compliance constitutes serious insubordination, providing just cause for termination under industrial relation standards.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Section 20(3) - Dismissal without just cause or excuse - Employee non-compliance with mandatory workplace health policy - Employer duty to ensure safe environment - Balance between individual autonomy and collective workplace safety. (Paras 11, 12, 13, 30, 36)
(B) Workplace Misconduct - Insubordination - Employer mandate for preventive medical procedures during a health crisis - Necessity of medical justification for exemption - Public interest and workplace safety requirements override individual preference when policies are reasonable and aligned with national health guidelines. (Paras 24, 25, 30, 35)
Facts of the case:
A worker was dismissed for failing to adhere to a mandatory health promotion policy initiated by the employer. Despite being provided with adequate notice and an opportunity to comply, the worker refused to participate in the mandatory immunization protocol due to personal concerns regarding side effects, without providing any medical documentation to justify an exemption. The employer maintained that the policy was essential for operational safety and legal compliance under workplace safety statutes.
Findings of Court:
The employer acted within its legal scope to implement health measures aimed at protecting the workforce and public. The worker’s refusal to follow the established policy, despite clarifying information provided by professional medical personnel, constituted a form of willful insubordination. The obligation to maintain a safe working environment and uphold public safety thresholds outweighed the individual’s personal opposition.
Issues: Whether the termination of the employment contract was carried out with just cause or excuse, and whether the refusal to comply with a legitimate, mandatory workplace health policy constitutes insubordination justifying dismissal.
Ratio Decidendi: Courts must evaluate if a dismissal is based on proven misconduct and whether that misconduct constitutes just cause for termination. When an employer mandates a reasonable safety policy that reflects national health goals, an employee's willful refusal to comply, in the absence of valid medical justification, constitutes insubordination that supports the fairness of a dismissal.
Result: Claim dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural context of the industrial dismissal reference case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. factual basis of the employer's vaccination policy and resulting termination dispute. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. summary of conflicting party interests and underlying contentions. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. application of evidentiary burden and the industrial court’s jurisdictional functions. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. evaluation of employee's refusal to vaccinate against established safety policies. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 6. public interest and safety mandates override individual autonomy in workplace regulation. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 7. formal ruling that the dismissal was with just cause and excuse. (Para 36 , 37) |
THE REFERENCE:
This is a reference dated 11.10.2022 by the Director General of Department of Industrial Relations, Ministry of Human Resources pursuant to section 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (“The Act”) arising out of the dismissal of MAZUNA BEGUM BINTI KADIR MIRA (Claimant) by MALAYSIAN AIRLINES BERHAD (Company) on the 29.09.2021.
AWARD
[1] Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the parties in this matter filed their respective submissions dated 05.10.2023 (Claimant’s written submissions), 09.10.2023 (Company’s written submissions), 06.11.2023 (Claimant’s written submissions in reply) and 09.11.2023 (Company’s written submissions in reply)
[2] This Court considered all the notes of proceedings in this matter, documents and cause papers in handing down this Award namely:
(i) The Claimant’s Statement of Case dated 12.12.2022;
(ii) The Company’s Statement in Reply dated 09.01.2023;
(iii) The Claimant’s Rejoinder dated 24.01.2023;
(iv) The Claimant’s Bundles of Documents – CLB 1 , CLB 2 & CLB 3 ;
(v) The Company’s Bundles of Documents – COB1 & COB 2 ;
(vi) The Claimant’s Witness Statement – CLW – WS ( Puan Mazuna Begum Binti Kadir Mira);
(vii) Company’s Witness Statement – COW1-WS (Dr. Mohammad Razin Kamarulzaman);
(viii) Company’s Witness Statement – COW2 - WS (Encik Mohammad Fauzi Bin Mahayuddin );
INTRODUCTION
[3] The dispute before this Court relates to the claim by Mazuna Begum Binti Kadir Mira (“Claimant”) that she was dismissed from her employment without just cause or excuse by Malaysia Airlines Berhad (“the Company”) on the 29.09.2021.
[4] The Claimant was employed by Malaysian Airlines System Berhad (MAS) since 1992 but MAS subsequently ceased business. The Claimant was then offered fresh employment by Malaysian Airlines Berhad, the Company herein by its letter dated 27.05.2015 and the Claimant accepted and commenced this fresh employment on the 01.09.2015 as a Leading Crew (Cabin Crew).
[5] In line with the Government of Malaysia’s National COVID-19 Immunisation Programme (NIP) commencing in early 2021, the Company under the Malaysian Aviation Group (MAG) Covid-19 Immunisation Policy dated 06.07.2021 introduced its COVID19 immunisation policy in the month of July the same year which made this immunisation compulsory for all employees and which the Claimant was aware. Despite the requirement for the Claimant to obtain the COVID-19 vaccine, the Claimant did not get the COVID-19 vaccine. The Claimant too did not have any medical reasons to justify why she ought to be exempted from taking the COVID-19 vaccine. The Claimant’s justification for not taking the vaccine was due to her own concern on the purported side effects of the vaccine. Despite the Company’s assurance that the vaccines approved by the Government of Malaysia are safe, the Claimant nevertheless refused to be vaccinated.
[6] The Company states that the Claimant’s act of refusal to comply with the Company’s Covid-19 Immunisation Policy amounted to a serious misconduct of insubordination that would put at risk the Company’s efforts to ensure a safe working environment for employees and public as a whole. The Company then issued the Claimant a show cause letter d
