Until today that is. Apart from all the doom and gloom, there might just be a glimmer of hope.....
Sacked man gets RM62,000 in back wages and compensationKUALA LUMPUR: An employer needs to consider other alternatives before resorting to dismissal for misconduct, the Industrial Court ruled.
It made such a finding after evaluating the circumstances in the dismissal of K. Ramachandiran, 48, by Carlsberg Brewery (Malaysia) Bhd for misconduct.
Ramachandiran was caught by security personnel for having two cans of Carlsberg Special Brew beer, belonging to the company, underneath his driver’s seat when he was leaving the brewery upon completion of his shift at 11.05pm on March 5, 2002.
Court chairman Gulam Muhiaddeen Abdul Aziz ruled that the employer should have considered alternative punishment available in the light of Ramachandiran’s guilty plea and his untarnished record of service with the company for 21 years as well as mitigation by the union.
“In determining the reasonableness of an employer’s decision to dismiss, the proper test is not what the policy of the employer was, but the reaction of the reasonable employer in the circumstances.
“The company’s Rules and Regulations must always be considered in the light of how it would be applied by a reasonable employer having regard to equity and the substantial merits of the case.
“A reasonable employer would not have dismissed the claimant in the circumstances of this case. The claimant was not holding any post of trust when he committed the offence,” he said in his 19-page award handed down on Aug 26.
He said the claimant, represented by counsel A. Jayaseelan, had shown his remorse by pleading guilty from the beginning when he was given a show-cause letter.
“He had served the company for 21 years without any disciplinary problem and had been promoted from general worker to machine attendant although he had only a Standard Six qualification.
“However, just because the claimant had committed an offence which according to the company is a serious misconduct, the mitigation factors were disregarded,” he said.
Gulam said for the reasons and the grounds of equity, good conscience and substantial merits of the case, he found that the misconduct of claimant is not sufficient to justify the dismissal. Gulam said he found the dismissal to be without just cause or excuse.
He ordered the company to pay the father of two RM62,118 in back wages and compensation in lieu of reinstatement.
As for the remedy sought, Gulam said reinstatement would not be beneficial to both parties.
The company held a domestic inquiry on March 21, 2002. The claimant attended the inquiry with union representatives who mitigated for alternative punishments.