KUALA LUMPUR – The industrial court has ruled in favour of medical service firm’s former employee, who claimed to have been unfairly dismissed by the company after being accused of having “inappropriate relations” with her supervisor.
In a September 17 judgement, the court’s chairman Vanithamany Sivalingam awarded the claimant a total of RM46,600 consisting of 21 months’ worth of back wages, plus compensation of one month’s pay for each year of service in lieu of reinstatement.
The company, Gemilang Occuhealth Services Sdn Bhd, has 30 days from the date of the award to pay the amount to the claimant’s solicitors, Messrs. Poh & Partners.
According to the facts of the case in the court’s judgement, the claimant, whose name is being withheld at her request, was employed as the company’s human resource administrator in November 2020, during which time she reported to one Sathiyan.
However, about a year after her employment, the company’s co-director, known as Dr Kavilashini, together with a man went to the claimant’s father’s shop in Sabak Bernam and “made a scene”, alleging that the claimant was having an “inappropriate relationship” with Sathiyan.
Despite a termination letter citing “conflict of interest” issued to the claimant the following day, Kavilashini and other company employees continued to “harass” the claimant’s family over the next few months, causing the claimant to lodge three police reports.
In a call to the claimant’s brother’s office in December 2022 , Kavilashini is said to have alleged that the claimant was trying to “seduce” Sathiyan and incite other Gemilang Occuhealth Services staffers to “disobey” her.
A month later, a part-time employee of the company called the claimant and threatened to spread “lewd photos” of her and Sathiyan, accusing the claimant of allegedly miscalculated his salary.
The judgement also noted that Gemilang Occuhealth Services did not file any cause papers or documents throughout the case, nor did it appear for the hearing on April 19 this year.
In delivering its verdict on unfair dismissal without just cause or excuse, the court pointed out that the company had failed to issue a warning or show cause letter to the claimant asking for an explanation regarding her alleged conduct, thus denying the claimant an opportunity to be heard.
Noting that the company had served the claimant two termination letters in 2022, dated November 26 and November 30, the court said the company had exercised an “unfair labour practice” against the claimant.
“Although the claimant did not adduce any evidence of the allegation of harassment against the company…it is the company who bears the burden on balance of probabilities to prove to the court that the termination was just with just cause or excuse.
“The company had failed to do so in this instance,” the judgement stated.
The judge added that the facts of the case led the court to conclude that reinstatement may not be an appropriate remedy for the claimant. – September 19, 2024