In allowing the secretary’s constructive dismissal claim on July 16, court chairman Salahudin Hidayat Shariff said the remarks made included a request that the complainant
him.massage
While witnesses from Construction Labour Exchange Centre Bhd testified that the CEO was joking when he asked her to
him, Salahudin maintained that it was still sexual harassment according to the employee’s handbook.massage
He said that when the complainant’s lawyer showed the witnesses the employees’ guidebook, all of them agreed that it was a form of sexual harassment.
The handbook states:
Sexual harassment encompasses various conducts of a sexual nature which can manifest themselves in five possible forms, namely verbal harassment in the form of offensive or suggestive remarks, comments, jokes, kidding, teasing, sounds, inquiries or discussions about sexual activities or other verbal abuses.
The CEO is also said to have asked his secretary to book a connecting hotel room or rooms next to each other during a trip; told her over lunch that she could strengthen her current position if she did a
thing; and instructed her to sit next to him in his car.certain
The complainant also claimed she received a love song and several messages from him through WhatsApp, but Salahudin said it could not be proven that the number actually belonged to the CEO.
Though some of the complainant’s claims cannot be proved, he said the court was bound to consider all of the CEO’s deeds as a series of actions that point towards sexual harassment, based on the company’s guidebook.
Salahudin also questioned the company’s decision to transfer the complainant from Kedah to Johor instead of Penang, where it had a branch, after an in-house committee found that her allegations against the CEO were untrue.
The claimant joined the company’s Kedah office as secretary cum personal assistant to the CEO in 2013 and resigned six years later.
said SalahudinThe claimant appealed against the transfer and requested to stay in her current office pending the disposal of her complaints against the CEO,
“She also asked for a report from the investigation committee that probed her complaints and reported to the company that they were not true.
This means the claimant had lied, in which case the company should have taken disciplinary action against her as she had embarrassed the company with her actions. But they did not.
Probe by GLC’s investigation committee not independent
The court chairman questioned the composition of the investigation committee that heard the claimant’s case, saying it comprised officers from the company who reported to the CEO.
Given that the company was wholly owned by the Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB), he said the presence of at least one director from CIDB would have shown that the probe was transparent and not influenced by the management.
Salahudin also pointed out that the committee’s report contained interviews with officers of the company, but the secretary was not questioned.
he said.The court finds this strange because investigations must be complete before finalising the report. The court finds that the company’s investigations were not independent,
He said all these actions had obstructed the claimant from getting justice for her complaints.
Salahudin said the Industrial Court does not need to find that a claim has been proven beyond reasonable doubt, but only on a balance of probabilities.
he said.Based on the evidence and authorities referred to above, this court is of the opinion that the claimant has on a balance of probabilities proven that her constructive dismissal was brought about by sexual harassment,
The claimant, who was earning RM5,670 a month when she resigned, was awarded RM158,760, made up of RM136,080 in back wages and RM22,680 in compensation in lieu of reinstatement.
Rasvinder Kaur Sodhi appeared for the claimant while Azam Mohamed and Zahrizal Zakaria represented the GLC. - FMT
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.