UNIJAYA ELECTRICAL SUPPLY SDN BHD v MUHAMMAD IZZUDDIN BIN AB RAHIM

Case Significance

Illustrates the burden on an employer to prove misconduct sufficient to justify a summary termination, and that a dismissal supported only by subjective or unsubstantiated warnings, without clear evidence of the alleged misconduct, will not amount to a termination for just cause.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam is an appeal by an employer against a decision of the Director General of Manpower, who had allowed a former employee's claim in the sum of RM21,266.79. The respondent had worked as a lorry driver for the appellant company since 2017 and complained to the Director General of Manpower that he had been terminated without notice, claiming salary in lieu of notice, termination benefits and salary in lieu of unused annual leave. The employer relied on three warning letters issued before the termination, for sleeping at the workplace, a bad work attitude, and a violation of company rules and policy, as justifying the immediate termination. The court examined each of the stated grounds. It accepted that the respondent had been reprimanded, but found the material thin: the respondent admitted sleeping on the job and was reprimanded for it; the "bad work attitude" complaint was subjective and disputed; and no evidence was produced of the policy said to have been violated in the third warning, while the termination itself was terse and did not set out the reasons for it. In these circumstances the court was hard pressed to find just cause for the immediate termination, and held that the employer had failed to discharge the burden of proving misconduct sufficient to justify it. Satisfied that the Director General of Manpower's decision was correct and did not warrant appellate intervention, the court dismissed the appeal. The court's approach shows that warning letters and a record of reprimands are not, by themselves, proof of misconduct grave enough to justify dismissal without notice; the employer must establish, with evidence, conduct that in law amounts to just cause, and vague or unparticularised allegations, coupled with a termination that gives no reasons, will not suffice. The judgment is a useful illustration of the burden on an employer to prove misconduct justifying summary dismissal, and of the consequences of a termination unsupported by clear evidence of the alleged misconduct.