LABOUR LAWS AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

TERMINATION AND DISCIPLINE

Salman is an executive in Hildemar Sdn Bhd. Recently Salman was accused of fighting with his colleague at work. Musa claimed that Salman shoved him to the ground and threw a thick work file at him when Musa scolded Salman for not completing his assigned task which consequently delayed Musas own work.

The company appointed Prabakaran, Salman former colleague who is now a manager to investigate the case. After doing some preliminary investigation, the company decided that they have prima facie evidence that misconduct did happen. Subsequently the company decided to convene a domestic inquiry (DI) against Salman. The HR department sent a notice of inquiry to him and asked him to turn up for the inquiry on the date, time and at the venue specified in the notice.

Herlinda, a senior manager in the Administration Department was appointed as Chairman of the Board of Inquiry. Another manager, Desmond, was also appointed to sit on the panel. It is well known in the company that Desmond and Musa are close childhood friends. Before the domestic inquiry commences, Herlinda called both Salman and Musa into her office to hear their side of the story. Herlinda believed the information that she got from the parties would help her get a clearer picture and hopefully settle the matter more speedily.

On the day of the domestic inquiry, Salman who was very worried about the DI, got distracted while riding his motorcycle and consequently got into an accident that required him to be rushed to the Emergency Ward for treatment. Salman managed to inform the company about his condition and consequently his inability to attend the DI.

The company nevertheless decided to continue with the inquiry even without Salmans presence. After the domestic inquiry was conducted, Salman was found guilty by the Board and was dismissed from his job. Salman, who was not satisfied with how the inquiry process was carried out filed a complaint for unjust dismissal under Section 20 of the IRA 1967.

Questions:

1. In this case, the company did not suspend Salman pending investigation. If you were the companys management, would you do the same or would you choose to suspend him? Justify your answer.
2. Based on the relevant Malaysian laws and decided case, advise Salman whether the company had adhered to the proper procedure in carrying out the domestic inquiry and consequently whether Salmans dismissal is justified.