 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CASE HIGHLIGHTS |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
HOR CHIN KEANG v. KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS (M) SDN BHD Abstract – (i) Falsifying service reports/job sheets for self-interest, indicating that a job was completed when it was not, and intentionally violating employer’s rules and policies, such as by retaining unused company property without permission or non-compliance with standard operating procedures, as in this case, constitute serious and grave misconduct. Such conduct represents a breach of fiduciary duty owed to the employer and the breach of it warrants dismissal; (ii) Length of service, while relevant, does not guarantee perpetual loyalty or honesty, nor does it preclude a finding of grave misconduct warranting dismissal. TAN YIH BENG v. HSBC BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD Abstract – Mutual respect and professional decorum are indispensable in maintaining a functional working relationship, particularly at managerial level. Rudeness in the workplace may, in serious cases, amount to insubordination where it undermines authority, discipline or the employer’s trust. However, the court must also consider whether the misconduct, in its factual context, had reached the threshold of seriousness that would warrant the ultimate penalty of dismissal. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LATEST CASES (ILR Issue 11 of 2025) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JUDICIAL QUOTES |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"The court therefore views the company’s reliance on its social media policies as overly expansive. These policies, in purporting to sanction any “negative” or “critical” comment concerning the company or its staff regardless of audience, timing, or intent, intrude upon private autonomy and are inconsistent with arts. 5(1) and 10(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution. The modern inclination towards monitoring employees’ private online behaviour, the so-called “Big Brother” paradigm has no place in industrial justice. Fidelity ends where personal autonomy begins. The Industrial Court cannot condone perpetual oversight that transforms discipline into domination. Industrial harmony is sustained not through censorship but through mutual trust and open dialogue. To penalise private venting of frustration is to engender fear rather than loyalty. Discipline must build confidence, not suppress dissent." - Per Pravin Kaur Jessy in Hyffny Yusof v. Airasia Berhad [2025] 4 ILR 344 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
