Probationers should not be placed in limbo as regards their employment as they have a legitimate expectation to be confirmed in their position, an Industrial Court chairman said.
Jeyaseelen T Anthony, who sits in Penang, said a probationer, like a permanent employee, must be accorded due respect and treated with utmost dignity.
“The employer has an implied duty to hear the legitimate grievances of the probationer and assist in whatever way possible, instead of acting mechanically, without thought and devoid of conscience,” he said.
Jeyaseelan ruled that Adeline Yeoh, a senior marketing manager who was not confirmed in her employment, was unfairly dismissed.
“The decision of the company not to confirm her employment as a branch manager was arbitrary and capricious,” said Jayaseelan.
He ordered Tune Insurance Malaysia Bhd to pay Yeoh RM180,000, being back wages for 12 months, the maximum that can be awarded to a probationer under the law.
At the time of her dismissal, Yeoh drew a monthly salary of RM14,000 and received a car allowance of RM1,000 per month.
However, Jeyaseelen reduced the compensation payable by 10% on account of post-dismissal earnings, resulting in a final compensation package of RM162,000.
He said a probationer was not entitled to compensation in lieu of reinstatement.
The company employed Yeoh as its Penang branch manager effective Oct 1, 2019. She was required to serve a three-month probation period.
Yeoh said her superiors did not appraise her performance as required under the company’s standard operating procedures. Neither was she counselled or issued with any written complaint about her job performance at the end of the first probation.
The company, however, extended her probation three times until it expired on Oct 1, 2020.
A superior then suddenly announced that Yeoh was no longer the Penang branch manager and in late October 2020 offered her the position of marketing officer at a reduced monthly salary of RM10,500.
Yeoh declined the offer, claiming it was tantamount to a demotion. As a result, the company issued her with a “non-confirmation” letter, claiming she had not achieved her key performance index (KPI) targets.
Jeyaseelen noted that Yeoh’s probation period was right smack in the middle of the Covid-19 pandemic and that the government had imposed a movement control order (MCO) with effect from March 18, 2020.
“Despite these challenges arising from the pandemic and the MCO, it can be gathered that the claimant did not just sit quietly but had instead taken the effort and initiative to push for an increase in the company’s business,” he said in the 72-page award released last week.
The company, however, was hell-bent on making sure that Yeoh achieved all her KPI targets, he noted.
Pravin Kaur Jessy and Ajit Singh Jessy represented Adeline, while M Leenalochana and Muhajir Wazinie Morchseinie acted for the company. - FMT
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.