WHAT'S NEW

Case Highlight

HANIS NAZ AZNIZA HAMZAH v. MALAYSIA AIRPORTS SDN BHD
INDUSTRIAL COURT, PENANG
JEYASEELEN T ANTHONY
AWARD NO. 596 OF 2024 [CASE NO: 18-4-1041-21]
2 MAY 2024

Abstract – When there are extenuating factors that may contribute to an employee’s misconduct, an employer ought to consider other punishment options, aside from dismissal, that befit the gravity of misconduct committed by the employee. This could range from suspension without pay to a salary reduction or demotion with a salary reduction. Depending on the circumstances surrounding a case, the punishment of dismissal may be unduly harsh and severe.

---

SHARIFAH ROZAITUL AKMA SYED ZAHIR v. UITM HOLDINGS SDN BHD
INDUSTRIAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
AUGUSTINE ANTHONY
AWARD NO. 662 OF 2024 [CASE NO: 4-4-749-23]
9 MAY 2024

Abstract – An employee under probation, by the very nature of his/her probationary period, needs to prove himself/herself on his/her performance and suitability of employment with the company and by this, the company maintains the prerogative in its decision on the confirmation of the probationers as a permanent employee. The proper person to judge the suitability of an employee on probation is the employer, so long as this exercise is not carried out in a questionable manner. When the performance of a probationer is called into question, it will be proper for the employer to observe certain duties imposed upon the employer in order not to run contrary to the requirement of the bona fide exercise of the employer’s prerogative not to confirm the probationer. Such duties include, having in place proper documents to signify that there was a proper appraisal and notification of the areas of the probationer’s weaknesses.