misconduct

Case Update: Dismissal of employee arrested by Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) deemed unfair

Marcus van Geyzel1 Comment

In this Case Update series, I share summaries of recent Malaysian court decisions to explore the current approach taken by the courts when deciding on employment-related issues. You can find all the posts in the series by clicking here, including case updates on other legal areas by TheMalaysianLawyer co-founder Lee Shih.

Employers are frequently caught off-guard when they have to respond to a sudden development that threatens to damage their corporate image or reputation. These days, a common example would be where an incident involving an employee goes viral on social media, in a negative way.

Although social media virality does spread a lot faster than traditional media, the legal issues are not new. I have advised employer-clients many times over the years on the proper process to follow when employees are the subject of negative media coverage, including instances where employees have been arrested.

Despite the urgency and sensationalism that comes with an employer being named in media reports, employers have to be clear-headed in responding to such situations (See: “Handing employee dismissals properly under Malaysian law”), as an over-reaction can have expensive consequences.

This was illustrated in the recent Industrial Court award in Abas Tuah v Malaysia Airports Holdings Bhd (Award No. 1749 of 2022).

Continue reading →

Can employers insist that employees working remotely return to the office?

Marcus van Geyzel1 Comment

One of the biggest changes to career and workplace culture as a result of the pandemic has been remote working. While the concept of remote working and the even more extreme “digital nomad” lifestyle is not new, there is no doubt that the pandemic and resultant lockdowns greatly accelerated the adoption of remote working, particularly in the more traditional industries and professions.

We have previously featured the views of employees on how remote working has changed the way their work (“Lessons from Lockdown: How COVID-19 and remote working have changed the way we work”), and also published insights from young lawyers on the legal industry’s experience with remote working (“COVID, MCO, and the Malaysian legal industry — Part 1: Money (paycuts, revenue), remote working, and technology”).

Employers now want employees back in the office

However, in the second half of 2022, this trend reversed. Employers who in 2020-21 seemed to have been convinced of the viability of allowing employees to work remotely or flexibly began to introduce policies mandating that employees needed to be in the office for a specified number of days each week.

In many industries, employees have been reluctant to return fulltime to the office, and compliance with these new directives has been mixed — it is common for employers to report that a “three days per week in the office” policy sees employees turning up for only two days each week.

It has been in the news in the past week that Apple are threatening disciplinary action against employees who fail to come into the office three days a week. Apple are reportedly tracking employee in-office attendance and will give employees escalating warnings, which could result in termination.

Many multinational businesses are similarly seeking to enforce these new directives more strictly in the different jurisdictions they operate in, and are finding that doing so can be legally complicated.

Continue reading →

Case Update: Employee dismissed after sexual harassment complaint deemed unfairly dismissed due to improper process

Marcus van GeyzelLeave a comment

In this Case Update series, I share summaries of recent Malaysian court decisions to explore the current approach taken by the courts when deciding on employment-related issues. You can find all the posts in the series by clicking here, including case updates on other legal areas by TheMalaysianLawyer co-founder Lee Shih.

Malaysian employers are still coming to terms with how to properly handle sexual harassment complaints. While many employers have been introducing anti-harassment policies and processes, and organising awareness and training sessions for employees, mistakes are still often being made in responding to complaints of workplace sexual harassment.

In a previous Case Update, I wrote about a case which illustrated how a mismanaged harassment complaint could expose an employer to a constructive dismissal claim (“Case Update: Employer’s poor handling of workplace assault and harassment complaints amounts to constructive dismissal”). I have also previously shared an Industrial Court case which serves as a useful overview for how the court views workplace sexual harassment (“Case Update: A guide to how the Industrial Court assesses sexual harassment complaints”).

This Case Update reviews the Industrial Court award in Lim Po Seng v Resort Villa Golf Course Berhad (Award No. 471 of 2023), where the court decided that an employee who was dismissed pursuant to a sexual harassment complaint was unfairly dismissed.

Continue reading →

Case Update: A guide to how the Industrial Court assesses sexual harassment complaints

Marcus van GeyzelLeave a comment

In this Case Update series, I share summaries of recent Malaysian court decisions to explore the current approach taken by the courts when deciding on employment-related issues. You can find all the posts in the series by clicking here, including case updates on other legal areas by TheMalaysianLawyer co-founder Lee Shih.

Sexual harassment in the workplace is a topic that has recently attracted a lot of attention and discussion. While most Malaysian employers have been relatively slow to respond, we have seen an increased focus in the past year from businesses and employers seeking to understand the often complex issues relating to workplace sexual harassment. There continues to be a noticeable increase in momentum of employers putting in place anti-harassment policies and processes, learning how to handle sexual harassment complaints, and ensuring that employees attend external and internal education and training sessions.

As I pointed out in my 2022 employment law forecast (See: “Employment law: 2021 review and 2022 forecast”), this focus on addressing workplace sexual harassment is expected to intensify in 2022, particularly with the increasing public discourse, and in view of Malaysia’s first specific sexual harassment legislation expected to be passed in the first half of the year (See: “Malaysia’s Anti-Sexual Harassment Bill tabled in Parliament”). In November 2021, the government shared that 775 sexual harassment cases had been reported and investigated by police — it’s clear that this is only the tip of the iceberg, and we will see more cases surfacing as awareness and education continues.

While the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act and the “Tribunal for Anti-Sexual Harassment” will provide a new specific avenue for sexual harassment complaints, in the context of the workplace, there has already been some recourse for employee-victims, and scope for employers to take action. Sexual harassment is a workplace misconduct punishable by termination, and victims of sexual harassment who can show that an employer had not properly handled a complaint could potentially claim to have been constructively dismissed (See: “Case Update: Employer’s poor handling of workplace assault and harassment complaints amounts to constructive dismissal” for one example). Of course, as already mentioned, as there has only recently been proper awareness and education in relation to workplace sexual harassment, over the years too many employee-victims have suffered in silence.

With the increase in sexual harassment complaints in recent years, the Industrial Court has had the opportunity to refine and clarify its approach in handling such cases. Sexual harassment can be very complex, as there are many types of sexual harassment. Evidence can also be controversial, as many instances of sexual harassment take place in private, without witnesses. To review the current position of the Industrial Court when it comes to adjudicating sexual harassment complaints, we will look at the recent case of AH v. Cagamas Berhad [2021] 4 ILR 284. This case update will cover the following topics:

  1. How the law defines sexual harassment.
  2. The burden of proof in sexual harassment misconduct.
  3. Are witnesses or corroboration necessary for sexual harassment cases?
  4. Does a delay in making a sexual harassment complaint render the claim invalid?
  5. Is “it was just a joke” a valid defence?
  6. Examples of what constitutes sexual harassment.

Continue reading →

Case Update: Federal Court decides whether punishable misconduct in employment law is distinguishable from criminal conduct

Marcus van GeyzelLeave a comment

Case Updates - red

In this Case Update series, I share summaries of recent Malaysian court decisions to explore the current approach taken by the courts when deciding on employment-related issues. You can find all the posts in the series by clicking here, including case updates on other legal areas by TheMalaysianLawyer co-founder Lee Shih.

Misconduct is one of the reasons which would qualify as “just cause” for an employer to dismiss an employee.

However, it’s not straightforward to pin down an exact definition of what constitutes “misconduct”. Even in instances where actions can be broadly categorised as misconduct, there is often confusion as to whether —

  • a misconduct is serious enough to justify dismissal instead of a lighter sanction; and
  • the standards to be applied to misconduct in the context of employment law are the same as those in respect of criminal wrongdoing.

This potential for confusion was illustrated in a recent case dealing with an employee dismissal for misconduct which went from the Industrial Court (“IC”) through to the High Court (“HC”), Court of Appeal (“COA”), and was ultimately decided by the Federal Court (“FC”). The issues were fully considered in the recent grounds of judgment of the FC dated 8 January 2018 in Akira Sales & Services (M) Sdn Bhd v Nadiah Zee binti Abdullah and Another Appeal (Federal Court Civil Appeal Nos. 01-15-05/2016 and 01-16-05/2016).

Continue reading →

Case Update: Court of Appeal considers whether an employer can dismiss an employee for insubordination

Marcus van GeyzelLeave a comment

Case Updates (FB)

In this Case Update series, I share summaries of recent Malaysian court decisions to explore the current approach taken by the courts when deciding on employment-related issues. You can find all the posts in the series by clicking here, including case updates on other legal areas by TheMalaysianLawyer co-founder Lee Shih.

Insubordination is where an employee wilfully disobeys or ignores an employer’s legitimate instructions. Malaysia’s Industrial Court has established via many previous decisions that insubordination is capable of being a serious misconduct which is sufficient to destroy the employment relationship and justify a dismissal.

However, as is the case for employee misconduct in general, not all instances of insubordination will amount to just cause for an employer to dismiss an employee. The Court of Appeal considered this issue in Ngiam Geok Mooi v. Pacific World Destination East Sdn Bhd [2016] 6 CLJ 395.

Continue reading →