Poultry firm’s dismissal of long-serving employee for ‘lack of integrity’ quashed

The High Court remits Poh Kwei Wah's case against Dinding Poultry Development Centre to the Industrial Court for compensation to be assessed.

The Ipoh High Court has overturned an Industrial Court award that upheld Dinding Poultry Development Centre’s dismissal of its assistant hatchery manager Poh Kwei Wah in 2023.

PETALING JAYA:

 A former assistant hatchery manager who served Dinding Poultry Development Centre Sdn Bhd for 34 years has won her appeal at the Ipoh High Court against an unfair dismissal ruling.

Poh Kwei Wah, 58, was accused by her employer of lacking integrity for dealing with a workshop previously blacklisted by the company.

However, Justice Norsharidah Awang ruled that the Industrial Court’s award, delivered on Oct 21, 2023, could not be sustained as the tribunal had failed to appreciate the evidence, resulting in a flawed conclusion.

“The award is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the Industrial Court solely for assessment of appropriate compensation,” the judge said when allowing Poh’s appeal.

The Industrial Court is empowered to award back wages capped at 24 months for permanent employees, and compensation in lieu of reinstatement, calculated at one month’s salary for each completed year of service.

In her 13-page judgment, Norsharidah ruled that the punishment of dismissal imposed on Poh was “manifestly disproportionate”.

She found that a senior officer of the company had, via an internal email dated Feb 22, 2021, notified employees of its decision to ban several workshops due to “integrity” issues.

The email had expressly prohibited employees from sending the company’s vehicles to the blacklisted workshops for “repair and maintenance”.

During an internal review conducted in early January 2023, it came to the company’s attention that Poh had between May 2021 and December 2022 sold used tyres to a banned workshop.

The company issued her with a show cause letter, which Poh replied to, insisting that she had acted in good faith. She also pointed out that the prohibition related only to repair and maintenance services, not the disposal or sale of used tyres.

Poh filed representations with the director-general of industrial relations after she was dismissed on March 10, 2023, following a domestic inquiry, which saw the matter referred to the Industrial Court.

Norsharidah noted that the company’s case rested almost entirely on the Feb 22 email.

She said a plain reading of the email revealed that the company’s instructions were confined to repair and maintenance dealings.

“There is no express wording, either in the email or in any subsequent written instruction, extending the prohibition to the sale or disposal of used tyres,” the judge said, adding that the Industrial Court erred by treating it as prohibiting all transactions.

She said the courts must exercise caution in disciplinary proceedings, especially where dismissal is at stake, and refrain from reading into an instruction matters that are not clearly and expressly conveyed.

“Any ambiguity must be resolved in favour of the employee. This fundamental principle was not adhered to by the Industrial Court,” the judgment read.

Norsharidah found that the email contained no clear, specific and unequivocal instruction prohibiting the sale of used tyres to blacklisted workshops.

The judge further found that the company had for a substantial period of time, “accepted and conceded in the appellant (Poh’s) actions.”

“The evidence shows that the sale of used tyres occurred over a prolonged duration without objection, intervention, or corrective instruction from the company. This undermines the company’s assertion that Poh’s conduct was plainly unlawful or blatantly in defiance of instructions,” she said.

Norsharidah also found no evidence that Poh derived any personal benefit, monetary or otherwise, from the sale of the used tyres.

“In the absence of proof of personal gain or dishonest intent, this court finds that the Industrial Court was not justified in characterising the appellant conduct as involving lack of integrity or breach of trust,” she said.

Norsharidah said the Industrial Court had failed to properly apply the principle of proportionality when determining punishment.

She said dismissal was the most severe sanction in employment law and must be reserved for cases where the misconduct is grave, and the employment relationship irreparably damaged.

“Poh had served for nearly 34 years and there was no prior disciplinary record, there was no evidence of financial loss to the company, and there was no abuse of position for personal gain,” she said.

The mere invocation of “integrity issues” without supporting evidence does not justify the ultimate penalty of dismissal, the judge ruled. - FMT