A knuckleduster is a weapon designed to be worn around the knuckles, to be used in hand-to-hand combat. It is often made from brass or metal, so that a punch delivered with the knuckleduster will result in increased damage.
Is it a terminable offence for an employee to bring a knuckleduster to the office, even if he did not use it? This was the core issue in a recent Malaysian Industrial Court case, Nor Azam Said v. Carigali Hess Operating Company Sdn Bhd [2023] 2 ILR 503.
Brief Facts
- A knuckleduster was found on the Claimant’s desk at the workplace, displayed on the Claimant’s office telephone.
- The Claimant admitted ownership, described it as a gift, and claimed it was a paperweight.
- Prior to this incident, the Claimant was involved in procurement irregularities and conflicts of interest, leading to a warning letter.
- The Claimant also exhibited intimidating behavior towards another employee in the parking lot earlier that day.
- The Company issued a show cause letter, suspended the Claimant, and lodged a police report.
- The Claimant was eventually dismissed for bringing the knuckleduster to the office.
Court’s Findings
The knuckleduster is a restricted and illegal weapon under the Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act 1958.
The Claimant initially did not deny ownership of the knuckleduster and even described it as a “man’s souvenir” and a “collector’s item” in a meeting with company representatives. However, the Claimant later denied ownership of the knuckleduster for the first time during the court proceedings, which the court deemed as an afterthought and lacking in credibility.
The Court considered the Claimant’s behaviour and statements, including a threatening encounter with a coworker, and a situation where the Claimant described how he could hurt someone with a lanyard, pen or knife. These were taken as indications that he intentionally brought the knuckleduster to the office.
The Court found that the charges in the show cause letter pertaining to the knuckleduster were clear and that there was no evidence of malicious intent on the part of the company. The Claimant’s possession of a knuckleduster, which is considered an offensive weapon under law, is a grave misconduct and a serious threat to other employees in the open office environment, compromising their well-being and safety.
Based on the evidence presented, the court concluded that the Claimant’s misconduct had been established on the balance of probabilities, and the dismissal was deemed a proportionate punishment.
Key Takeaways
- Context Matters: The case illustrates that dismissal decisions should consider the broader context of an employee’s conduct. In this instance, the Claimant’s history of misconduct and threatening behaviour played a crucial role in determining his true intentions.
- Prioritize Safety: Employers must conduct thorough investigations and prioritize safety when addressing alleged misconduct. The well-being and security of employees should be a paramount concern in any decision-making process. An employee who jeopardizes a safe and respectful working environment may be committing misconduct that warrants dismissal.
- Length of Service is not a Shield: Here, the Claimant argued that the Company should have considered his length of service since 2008 as a mitigating factor. Length of service does not immunize an employee from dismissal for gross misconduct. On the contrary, long-serving employees are expected to lead by example and adhere to higher standards of conduct.
***
This article was written by Donovan Cheah (Partner). Donovan has been named as a recommended lawyer for labour and employment by the Legal 500 Asia Pacific for 2017-2022, and he has also been recognised by Chambers Asia Pacific and Asialaw Profiles for his employment law and industrial relations work.
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.
