EMPLOYEE TO OBEY THE CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT AND STANDING ORDERS

              Remember, each and every employee must act in conformity of the provisions of employment contract and standing orders legally issued by the employer. In Industrial Court Award No: 30/68 (Guinness Malaysia Bhd. v. Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-Pekerja Perusahaan Membuat Minuman), the award, inter alia, states that, when the services of an employee is terminated on the grounds of misconduct under the provisions of a contract or of standing orders, the powers of the court to interfere are limited. The court will interfere only when something repugnant to the fundamental principles of social justice has taken place as, for example, where there has been some violation of the principles of natural justice. 

Further, in Asia Automobile Industries Sdn. Bhd. v. Three of its workmen, the Industrial Court has expressed their wiew,

“The Court is of the view that the said rules and regulations on personal conduct were framed in an arbitrary and, to some extent, capricious manner without attempting to distinguish between the serious, the less serious and the minor offences for each of which there should be appropriate remedies.  As the rule stand at the moment, the workmen might find it difficult not to commit an offence which, in the opinion of the Court, should not be the purpose of service regulations.  They should be clear and specific so that the workmen would know what acts they should avoid doing.  Having concluded thus, the Court finds that the punishment of immediate dismissal is unnecessarily harsh for the offence committed by the Claimant”.

Within the same perspective, the Industrial Court in Champion Motors (M) Sdn. Bhd. v. Kamaruzaman bin Khamis (IC Award No: 7/74) gave their comments and award as follows:

“The Company was quite entitled to view fighting between workmen during working hours as a threat to morale and discipline, but we do not think that fighting ‘simpliciter’ should automtically lead to instant dismissal merely because it happens to be one of the laid-down prohibitions in the Factory Rules. In factories where a number of persons work together in close unison with and proximity to each other, frayed tempers and occasional beaches of the peace can be expected.  An employer, of course, cannot be seen to condone an obvious display of indiscipline but, in deciding what disciplinary action should be taken against the offenders, factors like the nature of the outburst, the gravity of the assault, the seriousness of any resulting injuries, the personal conduct of those concerned, the likelihood of others being affected and the absence or presence of mitigating circumstances should all be carefully considered and weighed”.

The employer may also impose reasonabe restrictions as part of their Standing Orders. For example, in a newspaper office, it is necessary that the telephone be kept free for calls from field reporters, the receipt of news being an essential part of the business.  The management has a right to impose restrictions on the use of the telephone especially when it relates to personal calls (Malayan Thung Pau Bhd. v 4 employees)(IC Award No: 37/74).