“Whether En. Ghazali’s dismissal was without just cause or excuse”
CASE:
BRIEF FACTS:
- The Respondent [En. Ghazali] was employed as a General Manager for projects under a 2 year fixed term contract by MMC Engineering Group Berhad [MMC].
- MMC then seconded En. Ghazali as Head Sewerage Conveyance System (SCS) to MMC Pembentungan Langat Sdn Bhd for the Langat Sewerage Project.
- The Langat Sewerage Project was experiencing severe delays, and En. Ghazali was responsible for overseeing the project performance and monitoring operations staff.
- To overcome the delays, En. Ghazali issued a document titled “Network Operation – Staff Commitment to Project Completion” (“Commitment Declaration“) to fixed term operations staff.
- The document was issued purportedly on the directive of MMC’s Chief Operating Officer [COO] and the document requires the staff to indicate compliance with the 10 items of commitment stated in the document.
- The COO denied knowledge of the document and denied giving such instructions.
- Ghazali had informed the HR Manager of MMC Pembentungan Langat of his intention to issue the commitment declaration. The HR Manager voiced his reservations but En. Ghazali ignored it.
- Ghazali informed the Deputy Project Director of the draft but did not raise it with the Project Director as advised. However, the document remained in draft form and was never finalised.
- Although the document remained in a draft form the staff were eventually informed at a town hall by the HR Manager [since En. Ghazali was on leave] of the possibility that their fixed term contract not being extended if they did not agree to the commitment declaration.
- The staff were unhappy and raised their grievances.
- The matter was then referred to MMC’s HR Department.
- MMC then issued a show cause letter alleging that En. Ghazali:-
- Had acted without authority when issuing the Commitment Declaration document;
- Had misrepresented that the COO agreed with his actions; and
- and due to his actions had caused reputational damage to the COO.
- Ghazali’s employment was subsequently terminated, prompting a claim for unfair dismissal.
- The dispute was referred to the Industrial Court.
DECISION OF THE INDUSTRIAL COURT
- The dismissal was with just cause and excuse.
- Ghazali had acted beyond his authority by directing the issuance of the Commitment Declaration without proper approval;
- Ghazali had improperly used and quoted the name of the COO, thereby creating the impression of senior management endorsement; and
- It was satisfied that Ghazali’s conduct had placed undue pressure on employees, undermining trust and confidence.
- Ghazali being unhappy challenged the decision at the High Court.
DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT
- The High Court set aside the Industrial Court’s award.
- The High Court found that the Industrial Court had failed to consider that the Commitment Declaration remained in draft form and was never signed.
- They also held that there was no evidence of actual damage to the COO’s reputation or of industrial disharmony.
- The High Court held that En. Ghazali’s conduct amounted, at most, to an error of judgment.
- MMC being unhappy appealed to the Court of Appeal.
DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEAL
- The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s decision.
- The Court of Appeal held that although En. Ghazali may have exercised poor judgment in drafting and circulating the Commitment Declaration, this alone did not amount to a misconduct. En. Ghazali acted within the scope of his managerial role and in response to genuine operational concerns, without any dishonest or self-serving intent.
- The Court found that the reference to the COO in the Commitment Declaration did not constitute deliberate misrepresentation. There was no evidence that the reference to the COO caused any actual harm to his reputation.
- In this regard, the Court emphasised that:-
- the Commitment Declaration was never finalised;
- no staff member signed the document; and
- no industrial unrest or reputational injury was established.
- Disciplinary action taken on the basis of an incomplete document was therefore premature.
- Even if some degree of fault were assumed, the Court held that dismissal was wholly disproportionate.
Leave a Comment