"The Industrial Court upheld the dismissal of an employee for sexual harassment, emphasizing credible victim testimony and fair inquiry processes."
Addressing sexual harassment complaints in the workplace has been emphasized in the Employment Act since 2012. Employers are legally obliged to investigate such acts as they constitute serious misconduct. Due to the gravity of the offense, employers must establish whether such acts occurred to maintain a safe working environment.
In the recent case of Magendran Gunasekharan vs. Mattel (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd [2024] 1 ILR 188, the Industrial Court of Malaysia rendered a decision underscoring the importance of addressing sexual harassment allegations in the workplace with due diligence and fairness. The case revolves around serious allegations of sexual harassment by the accused employee and highlights significant considerations regarding evidence and procedural fairness in such matters.
Facts of the Case
Mattel (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd (“Company”) contended that the accused employee had engaged in inappropriate conduct towards a female colleague (“Victim”) which consisted of:
Groping her rear. She reported the incident to another colleague, who then informed the Human Resources (HR) department.
Her colleague also reported previous incidents of alleged sexual harassment by the accused employee, including making sexually suggestive comments, inappropriate eye contact, and sending late-night video calls and WhatsApp messages.
Following the complaints, the company suspended the accused employee and issued a letter outlining the sexual harassment charges. He responded to these letters, denying the allegations. The company conducted a domestic inquiry, during which the claimant was found guilty of the charges. Subsequently, his employment was terminated, leading to the current claim.
In his defense, the accused employee argued the following points:
The alleged groping incident did not occur and was fabricated by the Victim.
The allegations were merely an excuse for the company to terminate his employment.
He contended that terms like 'Mama (Uncle)' and 'Rape (Rosak)' used in the context of the allegations had different meanings and were misinterpreted.
He emphasized the necessity of corroborative evidence in cases of sexual harassment.
His termination violated the principles of natural justice.
Court's Findings and Decision
The Industrial Court made several crucial observations and decisions:
Denial Insufficient to Refute Allegations: The court held that a mere denial of the act does not suffice to disprove allegations of sexual harassment. The credibility of the complainant's testimony plays a vital role.
No Express Need for Corroboration: According to the Employment Act 1955 (Amendment 2012), there is no explicit requirement for corroborative evidence in workplace sexual harassment cases. If the victim's testimony is unusually convincing, a conviction can be deemed safe.
Probable Company Version: Upon evaluating the oral and documentary evidence presented by both parties, the court found the company's version of events more probable compared to the claimant's defense.
Contractual Responsibility for Fair DI: The court emphasized that the company has a contractual obligation to conduct a domestic inquiry to allow both parties to present evidence and witnesses. This process must be conducted bona fide, without discrimination or abuse of power, to ensure justice is served.
Conclusion
This case reinforces the principle that allegations of sexual harassment must be addressed with seriousness and fairness. It highlights that while corroborative evidence is not strictly necessary, the credibility of the victim's testimony is crucial. Moreover, it underscores the importance of conducting a fair and unbiased domestic inquiry to uphold the principles of natural justice. This decision serves as a significant precedent in guiding how sexual harassment cases should be managed in the workplace, ensuring that both the rights of the accused and the complainant are adequately protected.
