Employee Removes Without Permission Two Cans of Beer (Company Product)
- 雇员被要求对此事作出合理的解释，而他对此表示认罪。在举行内部调查后，他也同样认罪了。 他随后被解雇了，之后到工业法院上诉要求复职。
- 在工业法院的聆讯时，该雇员辩称指雇主小事化大，因为只是两罐啤酒，他不应该被解雇。 但是，该公司却认为这不是单个还是两个或更多罐的问题，而是其背后的原则问题。该公司觉得无论其价值或数量多少，应均与盗窃罪的方式对待。所以必须采取最严厉的惩罚措施以便雇员能了解雇用关系中应遵循的原则。
- 法庭认为解雇该雇员的决定太过严厉，雇主被勒令给予他赔偿。 但是，由于雇员确实犯下了不当行为罪，所以给予他赔偿的薪资须被扣除50％。
- A Machine Attendant with 20 years’ service was leaving work at the end of his shift, when the security staff found two cans of the company’s product (cans of beer) under the driver’s seat in his car.
- The worker was issued with a show cause letter to which he pleaded guilty. A domestic inquiry was held at which he also pleaded guilty. Subsequently, he was dismissed which led to him making a claim for reinstatement in Industrial Court.
- During the Industrial Court hearing, the employee argued that the employer made it an issue when on the fact that it was only two beer cans and hence, dismissal should not be warranted. However, the company submitted that it matters not whether it was a single can or two or more but the principle behind it. The Company must be consistent with the manner in which it treats the offence of theft irrespective of the value or number of cans. It must be dealt with the most severe form of punishment particularly so when an employee is aware of the principles that should be adhered to in the employment relationship.
- The Company argued that any theft is considered to be a gross misconduct that warranted immediate dismissal. This policy is consistent with the Company’s Rules and Regulations.
- The Court responded that while an employer has the right to punish an employee by dismissing him, he does not have total freedom to do so. The penalty imposed must be commensurate to the gravity of the misconduct committed by the employee.
- The Industrial Court found that, “In determining the reasonableness of an employer’s decision to dismiss, the proper test is not what the policy of the employer was, but what the reaction of the reasonable employer would be in the circumstances. The Company’s Rules and Regulations must always be considered in the light of how it would be applied by a reasonable employer having regard to equity and the substantial merits of the case.”
- The dismissal of the worker was found to be too harsh and the employer was ordered to pay compensation to him. However, because of the contributory misconduct by the employee, the backwages awarded to him were deducted by 50 per cent.
Ramachandiran Kesavan v. Carlsberg Brewery (Malaysia) Berhad  4 ILR 64
*加入 我们的“法律与你同行”FB 群组: http://bit.ly/fblawnjustice
*Like 我们的“法律与你同行” FB Page: http://bit.ly/lawnjusticefbpage
*Wilson Kuek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。我们为无数的平民百姓免费解除了各类的法律困扰。
*Kuek, Ong & Associates. Advocates & Solicitors. No.86-1, Jalan Mahagoni 1, Bandar Botanic, 41200 Klang, Selangor Darul Ehsan. Klang Lawyer. 巴生(吧生)律师楼。