In JIT v Jerald Gomez & Associates [Award No: 862 of 2026], the Industrial Court considered whether an employee could be dismissed for failing to disclose material information during a job interview. The case confirms that deliberately suppressing or misrepresenting material facts can amount to misconduct justifying dismissal.
Brief Facts
- The Claimant claimed he was dismissed without just cause or excuse.
- The Employer, a law firm, employed the Claimant as a legal assistant.
- During the interview, the Claimant was asked about his relationship with his former employer (his pupil master) and his reasons for leaving.
- The Employer contended that the Claimant described a very good relationship with his former pupil master and said he left only to gain wider exposure to different areas of law. The Claimant maintained that he had told the interviewer he left over disagreements about his allowance.
- On the strength of those representations, the Employer offered him the legal assistant position.
- The Employer later discovered that the Claimant had in fact lodged a disciplinary complaint against his former pupil master with the Bar Council Disciplinary Board. This came to light when he requested leave to attend the resulting disciplinary hearing.
- The Employer asked the Claimant to explain why he had not disclosed this during the interview. Dissatisfied with his explanation, it dismissed him for deliberately concealing a material fact.
Court’s Findings
After weighing the evidence, the Industrial Court found the Employer’s version more credible and held that the Claimant was dismissed with just cause and excuse.
The Court accepted that, during the interview, the Employer had stressed honesty and loyalty as core values, the breach of which would fracture the working relationship.
Although specifically asked about his relationship with his former employer and his reasons for leaving, the Claimant described a very good relationship and never mentioned the complaint he had lodged against his pupil master.
The Court held that the disciplinary complaint was material to the interview. It found that the Claimant had deliberately withheld it, fearing it would harm his chances of securing the job.
The Court distinguished between speaking ill of a former employer and simply disclosing a directly relevant fact. It concluded that the non-disclosure amounted to misconduct and that the resulting loss of trust and confidence had fractured the working relationship.
Key Takeaways
Misconduct is not confined to the employment period. Employees should be careful about withholding information during recruitment, especially where it is directly relevant to the employer’s assessment of their suitability for the role.
Employers, in turn, should ask clear questions during recruitment about an applicant’s employment history, reasons for leaving, and overall suitability.
Where an employee secures a role by deliberately concealing material facts, dismissal may be justified once the concealment comes to light, because it undermines the trust and confidence central to a professional employment relationship.
***
This article was written by Donovan Cheah (Partner) with the assistance of Tan Zixuan (Pupil in Chambers) Donovan & Ho’s employment law practice.
Donovan & Ho is a law firm in Malaysia, and our employment practice group has built a reputation for providing strategic employment advice to local and global organisations. Our team of employment lawyers provide advice on employment law and industrial relations including review of employment contracts, policies and handbooks, advising on workforce reductions, and managing dismissals of employees for poor performance or misconduct. We also represent clients in unfair dismissal claims and employment-related litigation.
Have a question? Please contact us.
