Master-Servant Relationship

Any known act of misconduct, immediate action must be taken against the employee upon knowledge of the misconduct even if the misconduct had happened months (or even years) before it surfaced. Failure to take disciplinary action (or any other action) against the employee shall be deemed as an act of condonation the Company choose not to punish or pursue the alleged misconduct. It is ALWAYS the burden of the Company to prove that the employee has indeed carry out the misconduct and NOT the employee to prove that he/she is guilty of the charge(s).

As the learned Chairman stated in Stamford Executive Center v. Puan Dharsini Ganesan (1986) “The employer must prove the employee guilty and it is not the employee who must prove himself not guilty”. 

The quoted case of James v. Waltham [1973] IRLR 202 in dealing with non-performer, it was 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, (1) first telling the employee of the respects in which he is failing to do his job adequately, (2) warning him of the possibility or likelihood of dismissal on this ground, and (3) 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.”

In another case of Ireka Construction Berhad v. Chantiravathan Subramaniam James [1995] 2 ILR 11. In the said case, the learned Chairman has stated:

“It would appear ... that a written warning by the company is essential before it can dismiss the claimant on the ground of poor performance. In the instant case it is not disputed that the claimant was never given a written warning but the company alleges he was given oral warnings which were adequate. That being so, the burden lies on the company to adduce convincing and compelling evidence to prove this.”

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 .....