Oleh Faudzil Harun
Pakar sosiologi akan berkata “apa yang menyebabkan berlakunya salahlaku bergantung kepada nilai dan norma sesuatu komuniti.”
Sebagai contoh, berpakaian seksi tidak di benarkan di pejabat kerajaan tetapi tidak di komuniti lain. Walaubagaimanapun kita memberi tumpuan kepada apa yang menyebabkan berlakunya salahlaku dalam pekerjaan.
Dalam hubungan pekerjaan, pekerja mempunyai obligasi terhadap majikannya. Ia boleh di jelaskan dalam terma dan syarat pekerjaan sama ada secara nyata atau tersirat.
Apa-apa perlakuan pekerja yang tidak konsisten keatas perlaksanaan tugas dan tanggungjawab kepada majikannya boleh di anggap sebagai salahlaku.
Tidak satu pun undang-undang pekerjaan memberi tafsiran jelas berkaitan salahlaku.
Sebagai panduan, apa yang di anggap salahlaku oleh mahkamah dan tribunal pekerjaan di jadikan rujukan.
Dalam Mahkamah Perusahaan, salahlaku di tafsirkan sebagai “perlakuan diluar norma kebiasaan, pengurusan yang buruk, pengurusan yang salah dan kecuaian yang tercela kepada tanggungjawan dan obligasi”.
Dalam perundangan, terma salahlaku selalunya di kaitkan dengan “suatu tindakan pekerja yang di lakukan secara sukarela dengan niat yang salah”. Ia juga kerap di kaitkan dengan penyelewengan dari tugas dan tanggungjawab.
Kategori Salahlaku
1. Salahlaku Berkaitan Tugas Mengaitkan kegagalan pekerja memberi perkhidmatan yang jujur secara konsisten.
In Chartered Bank v National Union of Bank Employees, I/C Award 104/83,
the court said : Employee’s obligation under the contract of employment requires
him to :-
1.1 Present himself for work at the designated time;
1.2 Give honest and faithful service;
1.3 Provide and use reasonable skill and care in performing his duties; and
1.4 Obey all reasonable orders given to him.
In Johor Bahru Foon Yew Associated Chinese Schools v Fan Lim Fah (2000),
the court held : “The relation of master and servant implies necessary that the
servant shall be in a position to perform his duty duly and faithfully, and if by his
own act he prevents himself from doing so, the master may dismiss him.”
2. Salahlaku Berkaitan Disiplin
Facts of the case
The claimant invited a female worker to his house for the night when his wife was not in.
A police raid disclosed the two in the house.
Employer’s disciplinary action
A domestic inquiry was held and on finding the claimant guilty, the company punished the employee with a reduction in salary of RM80/-
The court hearing
The union submitted that there was no misconduct as what the claimant did was after working hours and urged that the company was not the general custodian of morals and any act committed in the sphere of private life could not be considered as an act ‘subversive of discipline’.
Decision of the court
The court in upholding the decision of the employer held that all reasonable men may say that he cannot be trusted. The conduct of the claimant was also prejudicial to the interest of the employer as the location of the company was in a rural area and parents of young women would wary of sending their young daughters to work in the company.
In London Asiatic Rubber & Produce Co. Ltd. (Elphil Estate) Sg. Siput v Subramaniam, I/C Award 46/72, the court found the claimant although he was found guilty of fraternizing and having an improper relationship with a former employee outside the estate. The court overruled the dismissal on the grounds that the female ex-labourer was neither staying on the estate nor dependent on her parents who were living on the estate. There were also no complaints from the estate workers as to improper relationship of the conductor (supervisor). Thus one has to look at the circumstances surrounding the offence to determine whether the employee’s conduct deserves punishment.
In TWU v Syarikat Pengangkutan Kemajuan Sri Perak Berhad, I/C Award 161/81, a female employee was dismissed because she spent two nights in the bachelor’s mess at lumut, with a company bus driver. She was dismissed on the grounds her behavior was improper and against Islamic Law and which could ruin the image of the company. The court in ruling the dismissal as unfair agreed with the finding of the tribunal in Cassidy v HC Goodman Ltd. (1975) IRLR 86 that : “For an employee to be justifiably dismissed on the ground of his private conduct it has to be of exceptional gravity or be capable of damaging the employer’s business.” The court held that it couldn’t see how the claimants spending the night in the bachelor’s mess room could have affected a public transport business to the extent of ruining its image.
1. Abusive/derogatory/insolent/vulgar/impertinent language towards superior.
2. Assault of a superior.
3. Assault of fellow worker.
4. Assault of junior worker.
5. Assault of company doctor.
6. Assault of company client.
7. Borrowing money from subordinate.
8. Computer crimes.
9. Conflict of interest.
10. Criminal misconduct.
11. Damaging interest of employer.
12. Damaging company’s property.
13. Defamatory attack on superior.
14. Dishonesty.
15. Disobedience.
16. Drinking or being drunk at work.
17. Failure to provide skills.
18. False complaint against superior.
19. Fighting at work.
20. Forgery or falsifying.
21. Fraud.
22. Gambling at work.
23. Insubordination.
24. Lateness (persistent).
25. Leaving earlier.
26. Misuse of company property.
27. Negligence.
28. Punch card offences.
29. Refusal to acknowledge or reply show cause letter.
30. Refusal to accept warning letter.
31. Refusal to do overtime.
32. Rudeness to superior.
33. Sexual harassment.
34. Sleeping on duty.
35. Theft.
36. Threats to superior or employer.
37. Unauthorized disclosure or private use of company business secrecy.
38. Unsafe act which endanger other person’s safety.
39. Unsatisfactory relationship with colleagues.
40. Violation of law.
Ia bukan soalan yang mudah di jawab kerana ia di tafsirkan menerusi pelbagai persepsi.
Pakar sosiologi akan berkata “apa yang menyebabkan berlakunya salahlaku bergantung kepada nilai dan norma sesuatu komuniti.”
Sebagai contoh, berpakaian seksi tidak di benarkan di pejabat kerajaan tetapi tidak di komuniti lain. Walaubagaimanapun kita memberi tumpuan kepada apa yang menyebabkan berlakunya salahlaku dalam pekerjaan.
Dalam hubungan pekerjaan, pekerja mempunyai obligasi terhadap majikannya. Ia boleh di jelaskan dalam terma dan syarat pekerjaan sama ada secara nyata atau tersirat.
Apa-apa perlakuan pekerja yang tidak konsisten keatas perlaksanaan tugas dan tanggungjawab kepada majikannya boleh di anggap sebagai salahlaku.
Salahlaku Di Dalam Perundangan Industri
Tidak satu pun undang-undang pekerjaan memberi tafsiran jelas berkaitan salahlaku.
Sebagai panduan, apa yang di anggap salahlaku oleh mahkamah dan tribunal pekerjaan di jadikan rujukan.
Dalam Mahkamah Perusahaan, salahlaku di tafsirkan sebagai “perlakuan diluar norma kebiasaan, pengurusan yang buruk, pengurusan yang salah dan kecuaian yang tercela kepada tanggungjawan dan obligasi”.
Dalam perundangan, terma salahlaku selalunya di kaitkan dengan “suatu tindakan pekerja yang di lakukan secara sukarela dengan niat yang salah”. Ia juga kerap di kaitkan dengan penyelewengan dari tugas dan tanggungjawab.
Kategori Salahlaku
1. Salahlaku Berkaitan Tugas Mengaitkan kegagalan pekerja memberi perkhidmatan yang jujur secara konsisten.
In Chartered Bank v National Union of Bank Employees, I/C Award 104/83,
the court said : Employee’s obligation under the contract of employment requires
him to :-
1.1 Present himself for work at the designated time;
1.2 Give honest and faithful service;
1.3 Provide and use reasonable skill and care in performing his duties; and
1.4 Obey all reasonable orders given to him.
In Johor Bahru Foon Yew Associated Chinese Schools v Fan Lim Fah (2000),
the court held : “The relation of master and servant implies necessary that the
servant shall be in a position to perform his duty duly and faithfully, and if by his
own act he prevents himself from doing so, the master may dismiss him.”
2. Salahlaku Berkaitan Disiplin
● Mengaitkan perlanggaran peraturan disiplin pekerjaan atau disiplin di tempat kerja.
● Disiplin merupakan elemen dasar dalam hubungan pekerjaan.
● Pekerja mesti menerima kuasa majikan untuk mengawal atau menyekat
kebebasannya dalam hubungan pekerjaan dan majikan berhak menghukum pekerja
yang melanggari peraturan disiplin bagi tujuan menjaga keharmonian tempat kerja
bagi kepentingan semua warga kerja secara keseluruhannya.
3. Salahlaku Berkaitan Moral
● Disiplin merupakan elemen dasar dalam hubungan pekerjaan.
● Pekerja mesti menerima kuasa majikan untuk mengawal atau menyekat
kebebasannya dalam hubungan pekerjaan dan majikan berhak menghukum pekerja
yang melanggari peraturan disiplin bagi tujuan menjaga keharmonian tempat kerja
bagi kepentingan semua warga kerja secara keseluruhannya.
3. Salahlaku Berkaitan Moral
Perlakuan tidak bermoral pekerja termasuk di luar waktu bekerja dan di luar premis
pekerjaan juga merupakan salahlaku jika perlakuan itu memberi kesan negatif
(prejudis) dan menjejaskan kepentingan majikan.
pekerjaan juga merupakan salahlaku jika perlakuan itu memberi kesan negatif
(prejudis) dan menjejaskan kepentingan majikan.
Rujukan :
In I/C Award 98/93 – Permint Plywood Sdn Bhd v Kesatuan Pekerja-Pekerja
Perkayuan Semenanjung Malaysia the court held : “Immoral behavior after working hours is misconduct.”
Facts of the case
The claimant invited a female worker to his house for the night when his wife was not in.
A police raid disclosed the two in the house.
Employer’s disciplinary action
A domestic inquiry was held and on finding the claimant guilty, the company punished the employee with a reduction in salary of RM80/-
The court hearing
The union submitted that there was no misconduct as what the claimant did was after working hours and urged that the company was not the general custodian of morals and any act committed in the sphere of private life could not be considered as an act ‘subversive of discipline’.
Decision of the court
The court in upholding the decision of the employer held that all reasonable men may say that he cannot be trusted. The conduct of the claimant was also prejudicial to the interest of the employer as the location of the company was in a rural area and parents of young women would wary of sending their young daughters to work in the company.
In London Asiatic Rubber & Produce Co. Ltd. (Elphil Estate) Sg. Siput v Subramaniam, I/C Award 46/72, the court found the claimant although he was found guilty of fraternizing and having an improper relationship with a former employee outside the estate. The court overruled the dismissal on the grounds that the female ex-labourer was neither staying on the estate nor dependent on her parents who were living on the estate. There were also no complaints from the estate workers as to improper relationship of the conductor (supervisor). Thus one has to look at the circumstances surrounding the offence to determine whether the employee’s conduct deserves punishment.
In TWU v Syarikat Pengangkutan Kemajuan Sri Perak Berhad, I/C Award 161/81, a female employee was dismissed because she spent two nights in the bachelor’s mess at lumut, with a company bus driver. She was dismissed on the grounds her behavior was improper and against Islamic Law and which could ruin the image of the company. The court in ruling the dismissal as unfair agreed with the finding of the tribunal in Cassidy v HC Goodman Ltd. (1975) IRLR 86 that : “For an employee to be justifiably dismissed on the ground of his private conduct it has to be of exceptional gravity or be capable of damaging the employer’s business.” The court held that it couldn’t see how the claimants spending the night in the bachelor’s mess room could have affected a public transport business to the extent of ruining its image.
1. Abusive/derogatory/insolent/vulgar/impertinent language towards superior.
2. Assault of a superior.
3. Assault of fellow worker.
4. Assault of junior worker.
5. Assault of company doctor.
6. Assault of company client.
7. Borrowing money from subordinate.
8. Computer crimes.
9. Conflict of interest.
10. Criminal misconduct.
11. Damaging interest of employer.
12. Damaging company’s property.
13. Defamatory attack on superior.
14. Dishonesty.
15. Disobedience.
16. Drinking or being drunk at work.
17. Failure to provide skills.
18. False complaint against superior.
19. Fighting at work.
20. Forgery or falsifying.
21. Fraud.
22. Gambling at work.
23. Insubordination.
24. Lateness (persistent).
25. Leaving earlier.
26. Misuse of company property.
27. Negligence.
28. Punch card offences.
29. Refusal to acknowledge or reply show cause letter.
30. Refusal to accept warning letter.
31. Refusal to do overtime.
32. Rudeness to superior.
33. Sexual harassment.
34. Sleeping on duty.
35. Theft.
36. Threats to superior or employer.
37. Unauthorized disclosure or private use of company business secrecy.
38. Unsafe act which endanger other person’s safety.
39. Unsatisfactory relationship with colleagues.
40. Violation of law.
No comments:
Post a Comment