The employee was a Security Officer. It was reported to the company that the employee had abetted his brother-in-law, who is a staff of another aviation company. COW1 stated that the employee had received a white plastic bag from his brother-in-law outside the fenced area.

The COW1 then detained the employee and brought him to his superior. Upon examination of the plastic bag and its contents, it was found that it contained an Apple iPod and a Sudoku game which was wrapped in an air sickness bag.

The company issued a letter of suspension and show cause letter, which was followed with a domestic inquiry into the employee’s alleged misconduct. The panel found him guilty of the charges.

The company contended that the employee had no authority or business to be at the gate of a restricted area at the airside Post 1 where the incident occurred and that the employee knew that he should not accept any items through the gate.

The fact that he did so without questioning his brother-in-law showed the higher probability that the employee was working hand-in-hand with the latter in trying to remove the items from KLIA.

The employee denied he abetted his brother-in-law in the alleged misconduct. He said he had received a call from his brother-in-law who had asked him to go to Post 1 KLIA to collect something which was not mentioned as the line was cut off.

The employee claimed he was worried that something serious had happened to his brother-in-law and when he was given the parcel, and he was not told of its contents.

The Court contemplated on whether the misconduct complained of by the employer had been established, and whether the proven misconduct constituted just cause or excuse for the dismissal.

The employee was employed as a Security Officer and it was part of his duty to maintain the security of the area designated to him. The misconduct which the employee has been found guilty of is very serious as it reflected a lack of honesty and integrity in him.

The employee knew that the area was off limits and yet, during his off duty period, he rushed to meet his brother-in-law there.

It is difficult for the Court to believe that the employee would have acted in such manner if he had known why he was meeting his brother-in-law there and the contents of the parcel. Besides in his statement, the employee stated he knew things could not be passed through the gate without undergoing security checks.

Dismissal with just cause or excuse.