Incorporating Employment (Amendment) Act 2022
jQuery Carousel
Member Login

  User ID
  Password
 
Forgot Password
   

MEF Academy Events
 05[MSOSH] Occupational Safety and Health Coordinator Trained Person5 - 7 December 2023 (9:00 AM – 5:00 PM)
 06[JB] HR FOR BEGINNERS (English)6-7 December 2023 (9.00 AM – 5.00 PM)
 12[IT] Microsoft Excel Essential Skills (Level 1 & 2) 12-13 December 2023 (9.00 AM – 5.00 PM)
 12[IT] PowerPivot: Powerful Data Analysis and Data Modelling in Microsoft Excel 12-13 December 2023 (9.00 AM – 5.00 PM)
 14[Meridian Communications] How to Handle Journalists and the Tough & Tricky Media Questions, and Act Pre-emptively to Overcome Media Crises & Controversies14 December 2023 (9.00 AM – 5.30 PM)
 19[JB] MANAGING AND HANDLING PROBATIONERS19 December 2023 (9.00 AM – 5.00 PM)
 20[IT] Tasks Automation with Microsoft Excel Macro / VBA (Fundamental & Intermediate) 20-21 December 2023  (9.00 AM – 5.00 PM)
 20[AeU-MEFA] Master of Human Resource Management (MHRM) - January Intake 2024 January Intake 2024
 09[Face to Face] Harness the power of AI for HR9 – 10 January 2024 (9.00 AM – 5.00 PM)
 18[Face to Face] (MC) A Practical Guide for Human Resources Practitioners on SOCSO’s Legislation – Employees’ Social Security Act 1969 (Act 4) 18 January 2024 (9.00 AM – 5.00 PM)
 

Selected Industrial Court Awards
Search Industrial Court Awards
Company/Claimant/Tags          


Award No:3/2014
  
Company:Misc Berhad
  
Claimant:  Zulhilmi Bin Fauzi 
 
  
Case  
  
​The employee was employed as a General Purpose Caterer and Clause 15 of his Letter of Appointment subjected him to random drug or alcohol test by the company.
In Dec 2010, the employee together with some other crew members were subjected to drug test and the results were positive.
 
The company issued him his termination letter and dismissed him. The employee responded to the termination letter appealing his case and sought reinstatement, but his appeal was rejected.
 
Issues:

1. Whether the employee was against the company’s policies when he tested positive for drugs?

2. Whether the employee was aware of company’s drug and alcohol policy?

3. Whether it had been serious misconduct?

4. Whether the dismissal was with just cause and excuse?

The employee contended that that his dismissal had been without just cause and excuse.

He claimed that he had not used any drugs at the material time and the collection of urine sample by the company did not comply with standard operating procedures and was therefore questionable.
 
  
Held   
  
​It was crystal clear that the Drug and Alcohol Policy of the employee’s Letter of Appointment requires the crew members including the employee to undergo random drug/alcohol test.
 
In the event the crew members were tested positive for prohibited drugs or alcohol, it shall result in immediate dismissal.
 
Having been tested positive for drugs, the misconduct of the employee was a minor misconduct. It was also clear that the employee had breached the regulation and policy of the company.
 
Dismissal was with just cause and excuse.
  
 
Tags/Keywords
drugs, dismissal, misconduct
  
/Side Banners/NMI_Mar2023.jpg
/Side Banners/PublicHoliday.jpg
/Side Banners/Membership-with-a-Click.jpg
/Side Banners/TalentCorp_170x55.jpg
/Side Banners/KWSP_170x104.jpg
/Side Banners/ace_170x153.jpg
/Side Banners/cape_170x50.jpg
/Side Banners/ioe_170x95.jpg
/Side Banners/ilo_170x90.jpg

   ©  Copyright 2023 Malaysian Employers Federation  |  All Rights Reserved.