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:
Post a Comment