拒绝接种新冠疫苗, 被解雇, 员工败[2025]

案件基本事实与背景

  1. 员工自 2011 年起在 AirAsia Berhad 任职，后转职至 Asia Digital Engineering Sdn. Bhd.（下称“公司”）。员工职位为电子航空维修技术人员，最后月薪为 RM3,298.00。
  2. 2021 年 COVID-19 疫情爆发期间，马来西亚政府启动全国疫苗接种计划，并通过一系列防疫政策要求公司采取措施确保职场安全。
  3. 公司于同年内部实行职场疫苗接种政策，要求全体员工完成 COVID-19 疫苗接种。员工以个人原则拒绝接种，声称将提供医疗说明，但在公司多次发出正式通知并安排会议说明的情况下，仍未提交任何有效文件。
  4. 公司于 2022 年 1 月 11 日正式向员工发出解雇通知书，终止雇佣关系。

员工主张及诉求

  1. 员工主张疫苗接种虽为政府鼓励，但非属法律强制，因此其拒绝接种疫苗不构成违纪行为。她表示自己的决定基于健康、心理以及宗教等因素，并曾多次表达愿意接受健康检查，但公司未曾提供替代方案或合理安排。
  2. 员工认为，公司以未接种为由区别对待员工，并不具备法律依据。其执行政策的方式涉嫌强制、胁迫与歧视，构成对员工权利的不当干预。因此员工向工业法庭提出申诉，要求恢复职位或给予适当赔偿。

公司抗辩及理由

  1. 公司回应称，其疫苗政策系依据《1994 年职业安全与健康法》第 15 条之规定所制定，作为雇主，公司负有法定义务确保员工在工作场所的安全与健康。该政策于 2021 年 8 月正式通过内部通告通知所有员工，并明确规定接种期限、安排方式与豁免条件。
  2. 员工自始至终未提交任何医疗证明或宗教豁免文件。公司在 2021 年 9 月至 11 月期间三度发函及电邮提醒其配合政策，并于 2021 年 10 月安排一场面对面会议，由员工直属主管与人资部主管共同参与，向员工说明政策重要性与后果，并再度要求其提交文件作为配合依据。
  3. 鉴于员工担任现场技术人员，必须进入机场机棚、检修飞机结构，且与其他技术人员需密切合作，因此远程工作并不可行。在此种情形下，员工未接种疫苗即无法进入工作场所，已无法履行其基本职责，公司遂于 2022 年 1 月依法发出正式解雇信，过程具备合理性与合法性。

法庭分析与判决

  1. 法庭查明，员工未在合理时间内向公司提交有效医疗豁免或宗教豁免证明。多次书面通知与会议后，员工仍坚拒接种疫苗。
  2. 法庭认定，公司执行疫苗政策乃出于公共卫生考虑，并符合国家防疫政策之整体策略。该政策亦系依据职业安全法律赋予雇主之职责所设，员工无合理法律依据拒绝配合。
  3. 因员工拒绝接种，导致其无法履行工作内容，亦未展示合作意愿，公司解雇之决定在法律与事实基础上属合理。

法庭详细论证与法律分析

  1. 法庭引用1994 年职业安全与健康法第 15 条文与第 24条文，重申雇主对确保职场卫生与安全具有不可推卸的法定义务。同时强调职场内部政策如具有法律授权与程序正当，即应受到法律保护。
  2. 员工无法提供证据证明其拒绝接种为合法免责行为，亦未配合任何替代措施，公司出于整体职场运行与同仁安全考量，采行解雇程序并无不当。

解雇程序是否合法？

  1. 法庭认定公司程序合法。首先，公司已于 2021 年 8 月正式发出职场疫苗政策通知，并在之后三度追发提醒及个别通知；其次，公司于 10 月举行正式会议向员工说明风险、后果及公司义务；第三，直至解雇当日，员工仍未提出任何医疗豁免证明。法庭认为解雇决定已符合法律合理性标准。

法院判决及责任分配

  1. 法庭裁定员工所提申诉不成立，驳回所有请求。法院认定公司疫苗政策合法，执行过程合规且合情合理，而员工无故抗拒、无合法支持文件，其行为不构成可受保护之拒绝，公司所作决定无须承担赔偿责任。

案件启示与总结

  1. 本案表明，个人自由虽受宪法保障，但在公共健康危机与职场合约关系中必须有所节制。职场政策如有明确法律授权、程序公开透明，雇主即具备正当性推进执行。
  2. 此外，员工有责任配合合理工作安排，若对政策有异议，应提供正当法律或医疗依据作为支撑。本案也提醒雇主，必须完整记录通知与沟通流程，以备法律审查，确保程序正义不受质疑。

CASE BACKGROUNDS AND FACTS

  1. This case involves a dismissal dispute between (“the Claimant”) and her former employer, Asia Digital Engineering Sdn. Bhd. (“the Company”). The Claimant was employed as a Part 145 Technician with a monthly salary of RM3,298. Her employment began under AirAsia Berhad in 2011 and was transferred to the Company in 2020 as part of an internal group restructuring. On 11 January 2022, the Claimant was dismissed from her position for refusing to comply with the Company’s COVID-19 Vaccination Policy.
  2. The Claimant’s dismissal occurred during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, a period marked by heightened public health concerns. The Company implemented a mandatory vaccination policy to safeguard the workplace and ensure operational continuity. While the vast majority of employees complied, the Claimant refused to be vaccinated, citing personal objections and health concerns, none of which were substantiated by medical documentation.
  3. Despite extensive communication efforts, including virtual meetings, written correspondences, and extended deadlines for submission of a medical exemption, the Claimant maintained her position. As a result, the Company eventually placed her on unpaid furlough and, following continued non-compliance, proceeded to terminate her employment.

CONTENTIONS OF PARTIES

Claimant’s Position:

  1. The Claimant contended that the Company acted unlawfully in terminating her employment. She argued that there was no legal obligation in Malaysia mandating COVID-19 vaccination and that the Company’s Vaccination Policy was unreasonable and unconstitutional. She maintained that vaccination is a matter of personal choice protected by Articles 5 (personal liberty), 8 (equality), and 9 (freedom of movement) of the Federal Constitution. The Claimant also highlighted the lack of prior disciplinary action, warnings, or a domestic inquiry before her termination.
  2. The Claimant argued that the Serology Test she provided should have sufficed as a medical basis for exemption. Furthermore, she claimed that the Company’s insistence on vaccination violated her bodily autonomy and that the furlough was imposed without her consent or justification.

Company’s Defense:

  1. The Company argued that it was statutorily obligated under the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1994 (OSHA 1994) to ensure a safe working environment. The Vaccination Policy was implemented to comply with these duties and national public health recommendations. The Company asserted that the Claimant was given numerous opportunities to comply or to provide valid medical reasons for exemption, all of which she failed to do.
  2. The Company emphasized that the Claimant’s role as a technician required her physical presence in the workplace and interaction with other staff. Her refusal to be vaccinated rendered her unable to perform her job functions. The Company noted that other employees with valid medical reasons were accommodated through furlough, a solution also offered to the Claimant but refused.
  3. The termination, according to the Company, was not discriminatory or punitive but necessary to uphold workplace safety and operational efficiency. The Company denied any mala fide or victimization, stating that it had exhausted all alternatives before proceeding with dismissal.

ISSUES

  1. The primary issue before the Industrial Court was whether the dismissal of the Claimant was carried out with just cause or excuse. As the fact of dismissal was not in dispute, the Court needed to determine whether the reason provided by the Company，non-compliance with the Vaccination Policy,constituted just cause.

EVALUATION AND FINDINGS

  1. The Court reiterated that the burden of proof lies on the employer to justify a dismissal. In assessing the case, the Court referred to legal precedents including J & P Coats (M) Bhd [1981] 1 LNS 30 and Telekom Malaysia Kawasan Utara [2002] 3 CLJ 314, which affirm that an employer must substantiate misconduct and prove that it warrants dismissal.
  2. The Court noted that the Vaccination Policy was adopted in alignment with Section 15 of OSHA 1994, which mandates employers to ensure workplace safety. Furthermore, Section 24 of the same Act places an obligation on employees to comply with safety measures instituted by the employer.
  3. The Company had conducted multiple meetings with the Claimant, granted extensions, and issued explanatory letters regarding the policy. Despite this, the Claimant failed to provide any medical justification and submitted only a Serology Test Report, which did not establish contraindications to vaccination.
  4. The Court found that the Claimant’s repeated refusals, absence of medical justification, and resistance to furlough constituted willful disobedience of lawful and reasonable orders a textbook case of insubordination.

ALLEGATION OF INSUBORDINATION

  1. In defining misconduct, the Court referenced O.P. Malhotra’s treatise on Industrial Disputes and Dr. V.G. Mhetras’s commentary on misconducts, noting that insubordination includes the deliberate refusal to follow lawful and reasonable instructions.
  2. The Court highlighted relevant precedents such as Mazuna Begum Kadir Mira v. Malaysia Airlines Berhad [2024] 1 ILR 389 and Farrij Khairis Mohd Khalid v. Malaysia Airlines Berhad [2024] ILRU 0966, where employees were similarly dismissed for non-compliance with vaccination policies. In those cases, the courts upheld the dismissals as lawful responses to safety-related insubordination.
  3. The Court found that the Company had taken all reasonable steps to engage with the Claimant and offer alternatives. Her continued refusal to cooperate undermined workplace safety and was incompatible with the responsibilities of her role.

DECISION

  1. The Court ruled that the Claimant’s dismissal was justified. It found that the Claimant’s conduct amounted to serious insubordination and that her refusal to be vaccinated posed a risk to other employees and hindered the Company’s ability to operate safely.
  2. The Court emphasized that while individuals may have personal reservations, such concerns must be balanced against public health imperatives and employer obligations under the law.

REMEDY

  1. As the dismissal was found to be with just cause and excuse, no remedy was awarded to the Claimant. Her claim for reinstatement and/or compensation was dismissed in its entirety.

REFLECTIONS

  1. This case affirms that employers have both the right and responsibility to enforce policies aimed at safeguarding health in the workplace, especially during national crises.
  2. An employee’s refusal to comply with a company-wide safety mandate, absent valid medical grounds, constitutes insubordination and justifies dismissal.
  3. While the law protects individual freedoms, such protections do not override an employer’s statutory duties or the collective safety of other employees. The judgment reinforces that responsible corporate action taken in line with legal mandates will be upheld by the Court.

Source: CASE NO.: 14/4-1643/22. AWARD NO.: 200 OF 2025. AWARD_41459. INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA, KUALA LUMPUR. YA PUAN ESWARY MAREE.

==============================

*如果您需要聘请律师处理法律事务/付费法律咨询，请联系我们。

*欢迎Whatsapp Wilson Kuek律师: 019-2286668 (https://wa.me/60192286668) / 律师楼联系号码: 016-3229368 (https://wa.me/60163229368)。If you wish to engage our services, kindly Whatsapp Wilson Kuek at: 019-2286668 (https://wa.me/60192286668) / our Legal Firm’s contact at: 016-3229368 (https://wa.me/60163229368).

*我们的律师楼拥有超过 20 年的执业经验。我们有处理民事纠纷(打官司/法庭诉讼)、商业纠纷、劳工纠纷(工业法庭）、追讨债务、遗产分配、立遗嘱、离婚、抚养权、赡养费、产业分配、领养小孩、拟商业合约、拟雇佣协议、拟买卖合约、银行贷款、法律咨询、法律顾问、等法律事务。全马的案件，我们皆有处理。We handle various legal matters including civil litigation, commercial disputes, labour disputes (Industrial Court), debt recovery, probate & letter of administration, will, divorce, children custody, maintenance/alimony, adoption, distribution of matrimonial assets, drafting commercial agreements, drafting employment contracts, drafting sale and purchase agreements, process loan documentations, providing legal consultations, offering legal advisory services and handling miscellaneous legal works.

*我们的律师楼网站拥有超过3,000则法律文章，免费提供大众阅读+参考。欢迎填写您的资料，订阅我们的法律文章: www.kuekong.com。Our law firm’s website features over 3,000 legal articles, available for free to the public for reading and reference. Feel free to fill in your details to subscribe to our legal articles: www.kuekong.com.

*Wilson Kuek律师是《法律与你同行 Law & Justice》面子书群组的创办人。《法律与你同行》是马来西亚最大的法律平台。我们的平台每天为无数的平民百姓免费解除各类的法律困扰。Wilson Kuek is the founder of the Facebook group “Law & Justice.” “Law & Justice” is Malaysia’s largest legal platform, providing free legal assistance to countless individuals daily.

*加入我们的Telegram: https://t.me/LawAndJusticeGroup

*加入 我们的“法律与你同行”FB 群组: http://bit.ly/fblawnjustice

*加入我们的“法律与你同行的FB Page: https://bit.ly/lawandjusticefbpage

*订阅我们的YouTube (频道 1): https://bit.ly/48IFP0g

*订阅我们的YouTube (频道 2): http://bit.ly/lawnjustice

*Kuek, Ong & Associates. Advocates & Solicitors. No.86-1, Jalan Mahagoni 1, Bandar Botanic, 41200 Klang, Selangor Darul Ehsan.

#郭汪律师事务所 #郭汪律师楼 #郭、汪律师事务所 #郭、汪律师楼 #巴生律师事务所 #巴生律师楼 #吧生律师事务所 #吧生律师楼 #KL律师 #吉隆坡律师 #郭伟廷律师 #律师郭伟廷 #大状

#民事诉讼律师 #民事案律师 #商业诉讼律师

#专打官司的律师 #专打官司律师 #专打民事诉讼案 #专打民事纠纷案 #专打商业纠纷案

#处理工业法庭案件的律师 #处理工业法庭案件律师 #工业法庭律师 #劳工案件律师 #劳工法庭案件律师 #劳工法庭律师

#专打离婚案的律师 #专打离婚案律师 #处理离婚的律师 #处理离婚案的律师 #离婚律师

#买卖合约律师 #买卖合同律师 #商业合约 #商业合同

#有经验的律师 #好律师 #专业的律师 #值得信赖的律师 #信得过的律师 #靠得住的律师 #靠谱的律师 #利害的律师 #有信誉的律师 #有声望的律师 #有名望的律师 #有名声的律师 #出名的律师 #有名的律师 #有实力的律师 #马来西亚华人律师 #懂华文的律师 #懂华语的律师

#Kuek, Ong & Associates #Kuek Ong & Associates #Kuek Ong Associates #Kuek_Ong_Associates #Kuek-Ong-Associates #Kuek*Ong*Associates #KuekOngAssociates #lawyer Wilson Kuek #WilsonKuek #Kuek Wee Teng #KuekWeeTeng

#Klang Legal Firm #Klang Lawyer #KL Lawyer #Kuala Lumpur Lawyer #Chinese Lawyer in Malaysia #Malaysia Lawyer #Civil Litigation Lawyer #Divorce Lawyer

#Specialised #Professional #Experienced #Trustworthy #Reliable #Reputable #Renowned #Famous #Skilled #Credible #Esteemed #Notable #Well-known #Capable

#insubordination #airline #vaccine #vaccinated #vaccination #打疫苗 #AirAsia Berhad #Asia Digital Engineering Sdn. Bhd.

Farrij Khairis bin Mohd Khalid v Malaysia Airlines Berhad Case No: 4/4-1381/22. Award 40461. Award No. 966 of 2024. Industrial Court Kuala Lumpur. Y.A. Tuan Augustine Anthony.

#不尊重上司 #不尊重老板 #不尊重雇主

#不服从指示 #不遵守指示 #不听从指示 #违抗指示

#不服从指令 #不遵守指令 #不听从指令 #违抗指令

#不服从上司指示 #不遵守上司指示 #不听从上司指示 #违抗上司指示

#不服从上司指令 #不遵守上司指令 #不听从上司指令 #违抗上司指令

#不服从老板指示 #不遵守老板指示 #不听从老板指示 #违抗老板指示

#不服从老板指令 #不遵守老板指令 #不听从老板指令 #违抗老板指令

#不服从雇主指示 #不遵守雇主指示 #不听从雇主指示 #违抗雇主指示

#不服从雇主指令 #不遵守雇主指令 #不听从雇主指令 #违抗雇主指令

You May Also Be Interested In:

公司董事被股东投票撤职，就等于连工作一起丢掉？

幼教师殴打自闭症男童，判罚RM800

电视台助理主任7年前收贿1.8万，监半年罚2万

破产和欠所得税者可以搭国内飞机吗?

TNB说电表偷电, 追两年电费, 屋主可以上诉？

破产后可以出国吗? 2026破产者出境申请指南

政府宣布特假, 私人公司一定要放假吗？

Cosplay的武器法律指南