Hubungan Majikan - Pekerja

What is breach of fiduciary trust? What is fiduciary trust in principle?

Hubungan majikan-pekerja bolehlah disamakan dengan perkahwinan. Kedua-duanya bergantung pada tahap kepercayaan dan juga tolak ansur. But! Dalam marriage, sekiranya salah satu pihak menyebabkan hilangnya kepercayaan, maka ianya boleh di’selamat’kan atas dasar keyakinan dan kepercayaan pada satu sama lain, biasanya…

This is a simple way to describe fiduciary trust between employee and employer, basically the trust level that tie the two (2) parties together.

However it is opposite when it comes to employment! Once the trust is not there, there is no reason for the employer to retain such employee. Misconducts that are Criminal Breach of Trust (CBT), act of fraudulent (forgery/fraud), destruction or damage of company property and physical assault on fellow colleagues are some examples that I can quote.

Breach of trust is an act of major misconduct. Dengan melanggar peraturan dan membuat salahlaku di bawah kategori ini, pekerja telah menyebabkan majikan hilang kepercayaan kepada mereka.

Bayangkan, seorang pekerja bahagian kewangan menggunakan float money untuk membeli makan tengahari setiap hari pada setiap hujung bulan dan akan menggantikannya apabila gaji diterima.

Imagine pula, pekerja anda mengemukakan MC yang telah diubah untuk membolehkan mereka ‘bercuti’ lebih dari apa yang disahkan oleh doctor.

Now, how about an employee who physically assaulted another colleague that caused bodily harm and injury.

All the above are examples of misconducts that will cause the company to lose faith and confidence upon them. Yang membuatkan persoalan-persoalan ini timbul – apakah dia akan buat lagi? Can I trust him again? Is this the truth or is he lying again? Should I assign someone else to this task?

Bila keyakinan itu tiada, maka bermaksud majikan tidak mempunyai sebarang kepercayaan kepada pekerja untuk terus disimpan bekerja.

Apa tindakan anda sebagai majikan?

Terdapat steps or processes yang perlu dipatuhi bagi memastikan tindakan yang diambil adalah berlandaskan undang-undang yang ada –

i.              Meneliti fakta kes atau salahlaku

ii.             Memberikan surat tunjuk sebab dan penggantungan kerja

iii.            Menilai jawapan kepada surat tunjuk sebab

iv.            Menjalankan Sesi Siasatan Dalaman (Domestic Inquiry)

v.             Hukuman berdasarkan keperluan

Mengapa tindakan gantung kerja dibuat?

Penggantungan kerja ke atas pekerja dibuat di atas dua (2) dasar iaitu security dan safety.

Security – pekerja yang terlibat mempunyai akses kepada dokumen-dokumen syarikat dan risau apabila tidak digantung, segala dokumen yang boleh menyokong kes syarikat untuk membuktikan kes boleh dihapuskan

Safety – apabila pekerja yang terbabit mendatangkan risiko keselamatan kepada pekerja-pekerja lain di kelilingnya atas dasar keselamatan iaitu risiko diserang atau diherdik.

Penggantungan kerja seperti ini adalah dalam Seksyen 14(2) Akta Kerja 1955 yang menggariskan bahawa penggantungan kerja for inquiry reasons or investigation is limited to 14 days with half pay. But! Employee boleh sebenarnya menggantung pekerja melebihi 14 hari dengan syarat bayaran gaji penuh dibuat penuh bagi tempoh yang melebihi itu. Majikan juga perlu mengambil kira, bahawa tempoh munasabah adalah perlu untuk melengkapkan siasatan di atas salah laku yang dilaporkan.

Terdapat banyak kes contoh yang boleh digunakan untuk menunjukkan betapa pentinganya fiduciary trust on employees -

In AZAHARI SHAHROM & Anor. v. ASSOCIATED PAN MALAYSIA CEMENT Sdn. Bhd. [2010] 1 ILR 423 @ 436 this Court was of the view that:

“It is trite that the association between employer and employee out of necessity is fiduciary in nature. There has to be mutual trust and confidence that one would deal with the other in all fairness and rectitude over the rights and obligations flowing between the parties under the employment agreement. If one does an act or commits an omission which is inconsistent with that fiduciary relationship then that act or omission will be mala fides. This principle has equal application as against the employer and the employee in their respective positions viz. the employment relationship between them.”

In PEARCE v. FOSTER [1886] (17) QBD 536, Lord Esher MR observed:

“The rule of law is that where a person has entered into the position of servant, if he does anything incompatible with the due and faithful discharge of his duty to his master, the latter has the right to dismiss. The relation of master and servant implies necessarily that the servant shall be in a position to perform his duty and faithfully, and if by his own act he prevents himself from doing so, the master may dismiss him.”

SOIL DYNAMICS (M) Sdn. Bhd. v. YONG FUI KIEW [2005] 2 ILR 817:

"... the relationship between an employer and an employee is of a fiduciary character and if the employee does an act which is inconsistent with the fiduciary relationship then it will be an act of bad faith for which his services can be terminated.”

Esso Malaysia Berhad v. Chiang Lick Teck [2003] 2 ILR 716:

“The court endeavours very hard to consider the long service and unblemished track record of the Claimant. Notwithstanding that, the court is of the opinion that the claimant's long years of unblemished service do not immunise the claimant from dismissal”

Pantas Cerah Sdn. Bhd. v. Lau Boon Seng [1999] 3 ILR 216, it was held:-

“When an employer employs an employee, it is implied the employee will faithfully with loyalty and honesty further the interest of the employer. There is a fiduciary relationship between the employer and the employee. An employee, under the payroll of the employer should not do any act which causes detriment to the interest of the employer”.

      Sime Bank Bhd v. Mohd Shaib Md Yusof [2003] 2 ILR 530:

      “The dishonest act of the claimant in submitting the false medical receipt has breached the fiduciary       relationship of trust between the bank and the claimant.”

Zulkipli Abdul Latif v Sistem Penerbangan Malaysia Bhd (2006) 3 ILR 1923 (Award No. 1438 of 2006), the Industrial Court held :

".............  Honesty  and  integrity  are  virtues  that  cannot  be compromised  in  an  employee  no  matter  what  position  he  holds  in  an organization.  In the instant case the Claimant had, by his acts of misconduct, not only acted against interest of the Company........  since  the  Claimant misconduct marred the trust and confidence that the Company had in him, the Company was right in taking the said virtues into account beside the nature  and  gravity  of  the  misconduct  committed  when  impossing  an appropriate punishment on the Claimant in the circumstances of the instant case."

In the case David Sien Hong Kong v Inchape Malaysia Sdn Bhd (1980) MLLR 101 the Industries Court held :

The management considered quite reasonably that it was unsafe for the Company to continue the Claimant in employment for he was found to have become so unfaithful as to be detrimental to the Company's business. This Court agrees that an employee in the responsible position of the Claimant owed a duty of fidelity to the employer at all times, even during his spare time at the office .....

AWOL - Absent without Leave (from work)

What happens when your staff decided not to turn up to work at all? Hilang tanpa dikesan, AWOL – Absent Without Leave!

Ada klausa Akta Kerja 1955 khas untuk kes seperti ini. Seksyen 15(2) Akta Kerja 1955, berkaitan ketidakhadiran pekerja tanpa sebab atau tanpa sebaran makluman. Terbaca seksyen ini –

“An employee shall be deemed to have broken his contract of service with the employer if he has been continuously absent from work for more than two consecutive working days without prior leave from his employer, unless he has a reasonable excuse for such absence and has informed or attempted to inform his employer of such excuse prior to or at the earliest opportunity during such absence”

Aplikasi cuti juga kerap disalahfaham pekerja, kelayakan cuti tahunan pekerja hanyalah kelayakan semata-mata dan bukanlah hak pekerja indefinitely!

Dengan menggunakan bilateral approach, cuti adalah kelayakan pekerja dan hak majikan. Hak majikan adalah kerana majikan mempunyai hak untuk melulus atau menolak permohonan cuti pekerja atas apa jua alasan-alasan. Kerana itulah bilateral dan bukanlah unilateral apabila cuti ini diperbualkan.

Ada juga yang confuse, Cuti Sakit atau MC juga dijadikan sebagai hak. Sama seperti Cuti Tahunan, Cuti Sakit juga menjadi hak majikan untuk melulus atau menolak. Tapi kebiasaannya, kebiasaannya majikan akan meluluskan MC atas sebab perikemanusiaan. Majikan juga ada hak untuk memanggil balik pekerja yang sedang bercuti atau sakit untuk menyiapkan kerja penting yang belum siap. Tapi atas dasar kemanusiaan dan ketimuran, kita tidak akan ganggu orang-orag yang bercuti.

TIga (3) kes berikut adalah contoh berkaitan cuti dari Mahkamah Perusahaan dan Mahkamah Persekutuan -

Metromix Sdn. Bhd v. Ismail Sulaiman (1996) 1 ILR 336, the Industrial Court held that:

“In cannot be denied a workman's leave is granted according to the exigencies of his service. Leave cannot be claimed as of right and the employer reserves the discretion to refuse or revoke leave. It, therefore, connotes the necessity of obtaining permission from his employer relieving him from the obligation of attending his work. Unless the permission or leave required is granted, the workman seeking leave cannot absent himself from work. Until and unless a workman's leave is approved by the proper approving authority he runs the risk of being absent without leave and in breach of statutory provision in the Employment Act.”

In Pan Global Textiles Bhd. v. Ang Beng Teik [2002] 2 MLJ 27, the Federal Court ruled no employee could claim as a matter of right leave of absence without permission and that remaining absent without any permission was gross violation of discipline, which constitute misconduct justifying the discharge of a workman from service. In so ruling, the Federal Court held as follows:-

 “No employee can claim as a matter of right leave of absence without permission and when there might not be any permission for the same. Remaining absent without any permission is, therefore, gross violation of discipline … (emphasis added).

Pan Global Textiles Bhd. Pulau Pinang v. Ang Beng Teik, supra where it was held:

“The Industrial Court had also erred in law and in jurisdiction for having held that there was a dismissal without just cause or excuse of the respondent's services with the applicant company when there was in fact and in law no dismissal. It is settled law that unless there is a sufficiently important breach of contract by the employer and the employee's action is in direct response to the employer's breach, an employee who leaves his work will be held to have resigned and there will be no dismissal within the meaning of the employment legislation. It is clear that in this case it was the respondent who had refused to report for work and by that had evinced an intention of not wanting to continue his employment with the applicant. This being so the letter of the applicant dated 6 June 1989 ought to be taken as an acceptance of the repudiation of the contract of employment. The respondent, by his failure to report for work, had dismissed himself and the question of whether the “dismissal was without just cause or excuse by his employer” did not arise”. (emphasis added)

Mengurus Pekerja dalam Percubaan (Probationer)

Are you a probationer? What is your right as a probationer?

Apakah hak-hak anda sebagai pekerja yang dalam tempoh percubaan?

Tiada apa-apa spesifik yang dinyatakan dalam Akta Kerja 1955 yang menggariskan panduan untuk pekerja dalam tempoh percubaan kecuali contoh-contoh atau petikan kes mahkamah.

Petikan dari kes Mahkamah Perusahaan, antara Lim Chiew Seng Vs. Jobstreet.Com Sdn. Bhd. Award (NO: 1360 OF 2013) dipetik

“As we know it to be there is no specific law in our country governing the status of a probationer except that which stems from the decided cases. As a result confirmation of a person engaged on probation as in the case of the Claimant often raises baffling problems. Absence of timely action on the part of the employer also throws up many ticklish issues. A probationer who is engaged on trial basis to prove his suitability for permanent absorption does not get a substantive status until he is confirmed. The decision to retain or not to retain must be based on an unbiased and objective consideration of the probationer's performance and behaviour and should not be a cloak for an order of punishment.”

Petikan kes di atas memberikan panduan bahawa memang tiada apa-apa akta atau peraturan yang menjelaskan kedudukan seorang pekerja dalam tempoh percubaan. Malah, beban atau tanggungjawab adalah terletak pada majikan untuk memastikan tindakan yang diambil mestilah pada kadar yang segera dan timely (tanpa berlengah).

Secara ringkasnya juga, sebagai majikan atau penyelia kepada pekerja dalam kategori ini, peranan hendaklah dimainkan secara berterusan dalam memastikan all these grounds are covered –

i.              Panduan dan bimbingan secara berterusan untuk memastikan pekerja dapat pengetahuan yang berkaitan untuk menjalankan tugas mereka

ii.         Komunikasi secara jelas serta peringatan demi peringatan BEREKOD diberikan kepada pekerja untuk mengenalpasti areas of improvement yang perlu diperbaiki untuk memastikan mereka memenuhi kriteria untuk disahkan dalam jawatan yang dilantik

iii.         KPI, KRA atau sasaran kerja yang realistik, tercapai (achievable) and munasabah (reasonable) dimaklumkan secara jelas dan terang kepada pekerja pada awal bermulanya pekerjaan mereka

Terdapat beberapa kes contoh dari Mahkamah Perusahaan yang boleh dibuat rujukan berkaitan dengan status percubaan (probationer) –

Dari kes Grand Banks Yachts Sdn. Bhd. V. Komander (B) Teng Tiung Sue (supra) where the learned Chairman Mr. John Louis O’Hara had this to say:

“…. As long as the company makes known to the claimant his short comings, inefficiencies and instances of unsatisfactory and poor performance in a proper, coherent and cogent manner, thereby ensuring procedural fairness, this court will regard the company as having met the test.”

Dalam kes IRC, antara NADA PAKAR Sdn. Bhd. v. RADJA ARITONANG (supra):  

“The probationer whose service has been terminated without the benefit of being given a fair opportunity to prove himself and/or the benefit of a fair process of assessment has lost the opportunity to establish himself in permanent employment with the employer or another employer elsewhere. He had as it were squandered his time with the employer who had not given him a fair bash at proving himself at the position and setting him off on his chosen career path.  This,  in  the  absence  of  other  factors  (some  of  which  have  been  set  out hereinbefore), which might constitute an exception to the general proposition, is the loss for which the probationer ought to be compensated. As adverted to previously, the practice of awarding compensation under the usual heads of back wages and compensation in lieu of reinstatement which is relevant to the confirmed employee on permanent employment can have no logical basis in the case of a probationer where no exceptional circumstances exist to justify the court dealing with this matter on the basis that he is a confirmed employee.”

Tapi seperti mana terma-terma lain pekerjaan di Malaysia, tiada yang hitam putih dalam garispanduan akta. Malah banyak lagi yang masih kelabu atau grey areas yang diinterpretasi dengan panduan kepada Mahkamah Perusahaan.

Garispanduan di atas tidak terpakai sekiranya pekerja yang dalam percubaan ini adalah dalam peringkat pengurusan (management).

James v. Waltham Holy Cross UPC [1973] IRLR 202 dealt with those employed in senior management held as follows:

“If an employee is not measuring up to the job, it may be because he is not exercising himself sufficiently or it may be because he really lacks the capacity to do so. An employer should be very slow to dismiss upon the ground that the employee is incapable of performing the work which he is employed to do, without first telling the employee of the respects in which he is failing to do his job adequately, warning him of the possibility or likelihood of dismissal on this ground, and giving him an opportunity of improving his performance. But those employed in senior management may by the nature of their jobs be fully aware of what is required of them and fully capable of judging for themselves whether they are achieving that requirement. In such circumstances, the need for warning and an opportunity for improvement is much less apparent. Again, cases can arise in which the inadequacy of performance is so extreme that there must be an irredeemable incapability. In such circumstances, exceptional though they no doubt are, a warning and opportunity for improvement are of no benefit to the employee and may constitute an unfair burden on the business.”