Unfair Dismissal: Industrial Court Awards Security Guard RM37,270

The Ipoh Industrial Court awarded a former security guard RM37,270.50 after it had found that his former employer was unable to prove his dismissal was with just cause. 

The Court found that the employer had disguised the claimant's permanent position as a fixed-term contract and its claim of the claimant's redundancy was unfounded.

The Court delivered the decision in favour of the claimant, Sri Kavin Sananadas, on August 19, 2021. 

 

The case

The employer hired the claimant, Sri Kavin Sananadas, as a security guard at their mine located in Gerik, Perak. The claimant worked a 12-hour shift daily.

The employer claimed that Sri Kavin was hired on a fixed-term contract for one year and terminated his service on July 1, 2019, on the grounds that his employment contract had expired.

However, he argued that the nature of his job was permanent, and the interviewers assured him that the employer would renew the contract once it expires.

Two days before his contract expired, the employer took his body measurements to issue new uniforms. Sri Kavin argued that this move gave him legitimate expectation that the employer could renew his contract.

After his contract expired, the employer carried out a performance appraisal, and his superior recommended his contract renewal. 

On July 1, 2019, the employer issued a termination letter without any warning or reason. After being laid off, Sri Kavin filed his case under Section 20 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 at the Industrial Relations Department.

The claimant was awarded RM37,270.50​.

The decision

The Industrial Court examining the case found several discrepancies between his work and the proper provisions under a fixed-term contract. The Court found that the security work performed by Sri Kavin was similar to permanent employment.

Among the matters disputed in the Industrial Court to assess whether Sri Kavin's work was in line with limited-term contract work or not were:

• The work he did was not temporary or periodic but permanent,

• Annual leave, and

• Retirement age.

Industrial Court chairperson Augustine Anthony said that the employer's conduct of dismissing the claimant displays unfair labour practices. 

The Court awarded the claimant the sum including back wages and compensation in place of reinstatement. It also took into account that the claimant was unemployed for six to seven months after his dismissal. 

Varathan Panneer Selvam and L Danaletchumi represented the claimant. Varathan said that the Court's decision shows that the employer cannot abuse a fixed-term contract where the nature of the job is permanent. For instance, security guards, cleaners, gardeners and others. 

Source: Sosialis

 

Articles that might interest you 
What You Need to Know About Program Subsidi Upah (PSU) 4.0
Latest Dine-in SOPs for Phase One of the NRP
KPDNHEP Allows Further Relaxation to More Sub-Sectors