Tuesday, March 1, 2016

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.”

No comments: