MAHB employee’s verbal volley isolated, dismissal unwarranted, says court

 

The Industrial Court ruled that Haniz Naz Azniza Hamza’s dismissal by Malaysia Airports Holdings Bhd was unjust and awarded her RM48,470 in back wages and compensation. (Facebook pic)

PETALING JAYA: An isolated use of profanity by a Malaysia Airports Holdings Bhd (MAHB) employee during a heated exchange with her superior was insufficient to warrant her dismissal, the Industrial Court has ruled.

Penang Industrial Court chairman Jeyaseelen Anthony said that while aviation security assistant Haniz Naz Azniza Hamza’s use of foul language amounted to misconduct, the punishment of dismissal meted out was “unduly harsh and severe”.

Quoting Lord Maugham from a Privy Council case dating back to 1937, Anthony said the court must apply “the standards of men, and not of angels” and “remember that men are apt to show temper when reprimanded”.

“This court must be mindful that it needs to guard against acting mechanically by merely looking at black and white letters of the charges of misconduct against the claimant (Haniz).

“Instead it must also consider the whole background of the relationship between the claimant and (her superior) which led to the incident that occurred on the night of March 10, 2020 and the tense situation that ensued.”

Despite holding that Haniz had been dismissed without just cause and excuse, Anthony found her guilty of contributory misconduct and deducted 40% from the total compensation awarded to her.

He awarded Haniz 24 months’ back wages, reduced by 15% to RM58,028 on account of post-dismissal earnings, plus RM22,756 as compensation for eight years of service.

“The total sum of RM80,784 is scaled down by 40% on account of contributory misconduct to RM48,470,” he said in an award sighted by FMT.

Anthony said Haniz ought to have exercised some restraint when confronted by her superior.

“However, from the evidence it was quite obvious that she did not, and had lost her temper and uttered the offending words which she regretted later.

“Furthermore, the claimant could have exercised some restraint and just walked away from (her superior) after the encounter but instead she walked back and pushed her,” the award read.

On the other hand, Anthony said, the airport operator failed to take the claimant’s “clean and unblemished (disciplinary) record” into account when meting out punishment.

“It would have been different if the claimant had committed misconduct involving fraud and misappropriation of money, or acts of violence where bodily injury was incurred, or (if) the claimant was suspended or downgraded for a similar misconduct previously.

“This court is of the view that the company should have imposed an alternative punishment instead of what has come to be known as the capital punishment in industrial disputes, which is a dismissal,” he said.

MAHB sacked Haniz in June 2020, saying her foul-mouthed volley, made in the Malay language, at sergeant Asmiza Sudin amounted to insubordination.

The employer also claimed her act of pushing Asmiza during the ensuing altercation was an “act of assault” and tantamount to a serious misconduct.

The airport operator claimed the claimant’s actions had caused disrepute to its good name, adding that she had also breached the company’s code of ethics.

According to the facts of the case, the incident began when Asmiza walked up to Haniz at a fast-food outlet at the Penang International Airport and berated her for not being at her duty post.

Witness statements filed in the proceedings said the claimant was walking away when Asmiza yelled: “Macam tu kah konstable senior?” (Is this how a senior constable acts?)

The court found that Haniz’s profane utterance was made in response to that remark.

Haniz, who admitted using coarse language, later tendered an apology which Asmiza refused to accept.

Citing evidence of an existing strained relationship between the duo, Anthony found Haniz’s reaction to be a “natural human response” triggered “in the heat of the moment” by “anger and frustration”.

“A senior officer of the company had also testified that Asmiza should not have raised her voice and scolded another officer in public.

“(Asmiza) could have instructed the claimant politely when she saw her at McDonald’s to return to her duty post and then discipline her in private instead of scolding her at a public area in front of (her) colleagues,” he said. - FMT