Reference no: EM133266947

Case: Kenny was employed as a Sales Executive in Syarikat Celomix. He received a salary of RM3380. Last month Kenny was accused of taking bribe from a customer of the company. His case was investigated by his direct supervisor, Mr. Chen. Kenny was also suspended without pay for two weeks pending the investigation. At the end of the investigation, the company concluded that there was enough evidence to charge Kenny and to hold a domestic inquiry. Zainal, the Senior Manager of Finance was appointed as Chairman of the Board of Inquiry. Before the domestic inquiry commenced, Zainal called Kenny into his office to hear his side of the story. Zainal believed that any information that he can get from Kenny would help him get a clearer picture of the case and hopefully settle the matter speedily.

On the day scheduled for the inquiry, while travelling to office to attend the hearing, Kenny met with an accident and suffered injuries that required him to seek treatment at the hospital. The doctor granted him medical leave for four days. Kenny called the company to inform them about his inability to attend the domestic inquiry but was surprised to learn that the company had decided to continue with the inquiry in his absence.

After the domestic inquiry was conducted, Kenny was found guilty by the Board. One week later, he received the termination letter from the company. Kenny was not satisfied with how the whole disciplinary process was carried out and wanted to sue his employer. But before he proceeds, he wishes to get clarification on certain issues.

In this context, advise Kenny on the following matter:

Question 1. The reasons why the company suspended him while they were still investigating the misconduct.

Question 2. Whether Syarikat Celomix has observed proper and legally correct disciplinary procedure starting from the time they conduct the investigation, the action by Zainal and their decision to conduct the domestic inquiry without his presence.

Question 3. Assuming that Kenny was indeed guilty, whether the company was right in terminating him since this is his first offence since working for the company for the past eight years. Is there a more appropriate punishment to be given in this case?