1.0 Edaran Communication SB lwn Tahar Mohamed (1998) 3 ILR 487
The accused was terminated from his position in the company due to his immoral acts toward his subordinate female workers. According to the Company Second Witness (C2W) who is an officer cleaner, the accused has been harassing her from February until March 1997. The accused has touched her on her shoulder and constantly asking her to go out for a date. However, C2W rejected the invitation every time he asked her and that led to the constant invitations by the accused. In another occasion, C2W was asked by the accused to clean a room in the office was later she found out it do not need to be cleaned. Later, the accused pull her ...view middle of the document...
The accused then denied the allegation, and the company asked him to provide a written replied to deny the allegation made but he failed to do so. Later, the company disciplinary board found him guilty for the charges alleged based on evidences provided and he was dismissed. He claimed that the dismissal was unlawful.
In this case, the court held that the accused acts were immoral as a supervisor of the company and it would be disrespectful toward the female workers. The judge, Yussof Ahmad also added that in the eye of the law, the accused himself has gone against Article 5.2(t) of the company’s guidelines not to act immorally in the workplace. Therefore, the dismissal was lawful based on the law provided and both elements of natural justice were provided during the investigation stage.
2.0 Fuchs Petrolube (Malaysia) SB v Chan Puck Lin (2003) 3 ILR
The claimant was dismissed for misconduct when he sexually harassed the company’s customer and the act done contravened three articles from the Code of Practice implemented by the company. The sections referred in this case were Act 4 (ii), Act 5 (ii) and Act 6 (ii) of the Code of Conduct on the Prevention and Eradication of Sexual Harassment in the Workplace ( Code of Conducts) provided by the Ministry of Human Resources of Malaysia.
Article 4(ii) of the Code state that any unwanted conduct of a sexual nature having the effect of verbal, non-verbal, visual, psychological or physical harassment that might, on reasonable grounds, be perceived by the recipient as an offence humiliation, or a threat to her/his well-being, but has no direct link to her/his employment is consider as a sexual harassment conduct. As in this case, the claimant who is a technical manager was dismissed by the company due to two alleged gross misconduct of sexual harassment toward the company’s customer when he constantly ringed her. The victim, Kogila Rajamaniam had complaint that claimant had constantly ringing her to invite her for lunch and continued harassing her since August 1997.
The claimant denied the harassment but admit the act of inviting her to lunch. Even though the act seems normal to the claimant, Article 5(ii) of the Code state that sexual harassment may also occur due to sexual annoyance. Sexual annoyance is sexually-related conduct that is offensive, hostile or intimidating to the recipient, but nonetheless has no direct link to any job benefit. However, the annoying conduct creates a bothersome working environment which the recipient has to tolerate in order to continue working. The complaint made by the customer was allowed because Article 5(ii) provides:
“A sexual harassment by an employee against a...