Broken Trust: Industrial Court Upholds Dismissal of 30-Year Veteran for Professional Misconduct

The Industrial Court of Malaysia has delivered a firm verdict on the boundaries of employee conduct, upholding the dismissal of a Senior Executive who utilized privileged access to systems to monitor and harass colleagues. In the case of T. A. Robert A/L S. Arokiam v. Bursa Malaysia Berhad , the court found that the employee’s breach of trust and misuse of confidential company data fundamentally eroded the employment relationship, rendering his termination both just and lawful.

A Career Unraveled: The Background

The claimant, T. A. Robert A/L S. Arokiam, had served Bursa Malaysia for over 30 years, eventually attaining the position of Senior Executive, Access Control. His duties included managing system access and safeguarding sensitive company data. However, between 2020 and 2021, the company discovered that the claimant had been abusing his privileged access to intercept and extract private Skype conversations between other employees.

The investigation revealed that the claimant used this information to stalk, threaten, and harass a female colleague, even employing derogatory language and external parties to further his personal grievances regarding a private financial dispute. Following an internal investigation and an interview where the claimant admitted to these actions, the company issued a notice of termination. The claimant subsequently challenged this dismissal, arguing it was "brutal, unfair, and unlawful" given his decades of service.

Arguments of the Parties

The company maintained that the claimant’s actions constituted gross misconduct—specifically, a breach of trust, leakage of information, and the infringement of a colleague's safety. They argued that the claimant's role as a "gatekeeper" made his actions a fundamental violation of his fiduciary duty to the company and a direct threat to the safety and professional integrity of its staff.

Conversely, the claimant argued that his actions were performed under severe depression and personal distress. He pointed to his long, unblemished service record and urged the court to consider his apology and remorse as mitigating factors. He further contended that the company had acted procedurally unfairly by failing to hold a formal Domestic Inquiry (DI) prior to his termination.

Legal Analysis and the Myth of the "Formal DI"

Presiding Chairman Ahmad Razif Mohd Sidek rejected the claimant's arguments, emphasizing that the Industrial Court conducts de novo (afresh) hearings, which prioritize substantial merits over procedural technicalities.

The court clarified that the absence of a formal Domestic Inquiry is not "fatal" to an employer's case, provided that a due and fair investigation, adhering to natural justice, was carried out. By interviewing the claimant, allowing him to explain his actions, and considering his written responses, the company satisfied the requirements of "due inquiry" mandated under the law.

Crucially, the court underscored that length of service does not immunize an employee against dismissal when major misconduct occurs. Referencing the principles in Shahrul Nizam Mohammad v. Rawang Specialist Hospital , the court noted, "Trust is like glass; once broken, it will never be the same again."

Key Observations

The court’s reasoning highlights the gravity of the claimant's breach:

> "The claimant’s misconduct was of a grave and serious nature, striking at the very root of the employer-employee relationship, which is founded upon mutual trust and confidence."

> "Any act involving dishonesty, deceit, or abuse of access to confidential information is destructive of that trust and justifies dismissal."

> "Good past conduct does not absolve or excuse serious present misconduct, especially when such misconduct destroys the foundation of trust essential to continued employment."

Final Verdict

The court dismissed the claimant’s claim, declaring the termination "just and lawful." It concluded that the company had acted reasonably and that the punishment of dismissal was a proportionate response to the severity of the claimant's actions.

This ruling serves as a stark reminder for employees in sensitive positions: the abuse of technical privileges combined with interpersonal harassment constitutes a bridge too far for the protection of employment contracts, regardless of an individual's tenure or past contributions to the organization.