1. 一名接待员时常在上班时间打电话给另一名公司员工。管理层因此事跟这名接待员谈过了两次。
  2. 此接待员否认打在上班时私聊电话。公司要求此接待员解释她在五个月里一直打电话私聊的行为。
  3. 公司内部调查后决定此接待员确实犯了错,因此解雇她。
  4. 公司也质问另一名与此接待员在电话交谈的男员工。此男员工说,他身为主管接听很多电话,全部都是与业务有关的。他否认在工作时间,长时间地在电话私聊。公司也解雇这名男员工。公司考量了2个因素: (1) 公司的开支因为电话费用而增加; 和 (2) 他们在工作时间里电话聊天,导致公司的生产力下降。
  5. 公司的调查显示一些通电话通话时间维持10分钟而另一些维持1个小时40分钟。 公司经理曾在此男员工正在电话聊天时走过,并清楚听到此接待员就是电话里的聊天对象。
  6. 这两名员工后来曾经承认互相通电话,并提出愿意支付他们的电话费用,总额超出00。但是后来他们却撤回这项提议,接着就被解雇了。
  7. 工业法院认为公司有足够的证据证明这两名员工的不当行为。到底此不当行为是否严重到足于解雇他们?电话记录显示在某一天,他们彼此通电话长达6小时32分,法院判决这些行为足于影响他们的工作职责。
  8. 工业法庭赞同公司解雇解雇员工的决定。

 

  1. A receptionist made frequent telephone calls to another employee in the same company during working hours. The management spoke to her on two occasions about the matter.
  2. She denied making the calls. A show cause letter was issued which alleged that she had been making these personal calls over a period of five months. A domestic inquiry was held at which the receptionist was found guilty and she was then dismissed.
  3. The employer also spoke to the person receiving the calls from the receptionist. He said that as a supervisor in the company he received many calls, all on business-related matters. He denied receiving numerous long personal incoming phone calls during working hours. He was also dismissed as the employer considered the two factors: (1) the cost to the company as a result of the increase in telephone bills and (2) the loss of productivity as their conversations were during working hours.
  4. The Company’s investigation showed that some of the phone calls were for a duration of ten minutes but there were others which lasted one hour and 40 minutes. Their manager also did a walk-by of the supervisor while he was on the phone and the manager could hear the voice of the receptionist on the other end.
  5. The two employees then confessed to making the calls to each other and offered to pay for the cost of the phone calls they had made which total more than RM4,000. They later retracted this offer and were dismissed.
  6. The Industrial Court found that there was sufficient evidence that the two employees were guilty of the misconduct with which they were charged. It also examined the issue of whether the misconduct was sufficiently serious to deserve dismissal. The telephone records showed that on one particular day, they had been on the phone to each other for a total of six hours and 32 minutes which the Court said would have disrupted their duties.
  7. The dismissal was upheld.

 

Source:

  1. Employee Misconduct, CLJ Publication
  2. Noor Eliza Abd Halil & Anor v. BD Agriculture (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd [2013] 2 ILR 602

 

==============================

*如果需要法律咨询或者聘请律师处理法律事务,你可以联系我们。

*浏览我们律师楼的法律文章: www.kuekong.com

*浏览我们律师楼的法律文章: www.kuekongklg.com

*订阅我们的YouTube: http://bit.ly/lawnjustice

*加入 我们的“法律与你同行”FB 群组: http://bit.ly/fblawnjustice

*Like 我们的“法律与你同行” FB Page: http://bit.ly/lawnjusticefbpage

*加入我们的网络论坛: www.queco.org

*Wilson Kuek是“法律与你同行 Law & Justice”面子书群组的创办人。“法律与你同行”是马来西亚最大的法律平台。我们为无数的平民百姓免费解除了各类的法律困扰。

*Kuek, Ong & Associates. Advocates & Solicitors. No.86-1, Jalan Mahagoni 1, Bandar Botanic, 41200 Klang, Selangor Darul Ehsan. Klang Lawyer. 巴生(吧生)律师楼。

*我们的律师楼拥有超过15年的执业经验。我们处理民事纠纷,商业纠纷,打官司/法庭诉讼,追讨债务,遗产分配,遗嘱,离婚,抚养权,赡养费,产业分配,领养小孩,拟商业合约,拟买卖合约,银行贷款,法律咨询,法律顾问,等法律事务。全马的案件,我们皆都处理。

*We have more than 15 years of experience in the legal profession. We handle matters such as commercial disputes, civil litigation, debt recovery, probate & letter of administration, will, divorce, children custody, maintenance/alimony, adoption, distribution of matrimonial assets, drafting commercial agreement, drafting sale and purchase agreement, process loan documentations, legal consultation, legal advisory, miscellaneous legal works.

#马来西亚华人律师 #Chinese Lawyer in Malaysia #Malaysia Lawyer #巴生律师 #吧生律师 #Klang Lawyer #KL律师 #吉隆坡律师 #KL Lawyer #懂华文的律师

#Kuek, Ong & Associates #Kuek Ong & Associates #Kuek Ong Associates #郭汪律师事务所 #郭汪律师楼

 

员工煲电话,解雇