What happens when an employee repeatedly refuses to follow the company’s instructions, despite being given multiple chances and alternatives? In the workplace, such defiance is known as insubordination which could be viewed as a serious misconduct that warrants dismissal.
This article spotlights the case of Roswati Binti M Said v Jelas Puri Sdn. Bhd. (Award No. 732 of 2025, 8 May 2025) involving the termination of an employee for failing to comply with the Company’s Vaccination Policy during the Covid-19 pandemic. While the facts are rooted in the unique circumstances of the pandemic, the broader principles relating to insubordination remain relevant in everyday workplace scenarios.
Brief Facts
- The Employee was an Admin Assistant (Operations) in the Operations Department of the Company. The Company is in the business of operating retail malls, which included Paradigm Mall in Kelana Jaya where the Claimant was based.
- During the pandemic, the Company introduced a Vaccination Policy for all employees to be fully vaccinated by 31.10.2021 to ensure a safe working environment. Given that the Company was in the retail business, the Company also issued an internal memorandum to all employees to return to the office (subject to certain requirements depending on their vaccination status).
- The Employee refused to be vaccinated on alleged medical grounds. Despite being reminded by the Company, the Employee neither vaccinated nor submitted a medical report to justify her refusal to be vaccinated. The Employee also continued to work from home as she was unvaccinated.
- In mid of November, the Company informed the Employee that she is to return to work in the office on 22.11.2021 as her job functions required her to be in the office physically. The Company also offered her an alternative of performing regular COVID-19 PCR tests at the Company’s panel clinic before attending work, if she did not want to be vaccinated
- The Employee did not attend the scheduled PCR test, and also still refused to provide any medical report about her alleged inability to be vaccinated.
- The Company provided a further opportunity to the employee, and extended her return-to-work date to 03.01.2022, subject to her either submitting the medical report, or undergoing the routine PCR Test.
- The Employee still failed to return to work at office, and continued to object to the Company’s policy on vaccination.
- As such, disciplinary proceedings were commenced against the Employee for her insubordination and failure to attend to work as instructed. During the domestic inquiry, the Employee pleaded guilty to the charges but maintained her stance that she did not agree to be vaccinated.
- The Employee was dismissed for insubordination and claimed unfair dismissal.
Court’s evaluation and findings
The Court found that her dismissal was with just cause and excuse:
- The Court held that the charges levelled against the Claimant amounted to insubordination as she had consistently failed to comply with the Company’s instructions.
- The Company provided alternatives to the Employee to accommodate her refusal to be vaccinated, such as furnishing a medical report to justify her stance, or to undergo the weekly PCR tests instead of vaccination. The Employee failed to comply with the alternatives as well.
- The Court ruled that the Employee’s overall conduct demonstrated a willful defiance of the Company’s lawful and reasonable orders, which was serious enough to warrant her dismissal, particularly in the challenging circumstances of the Covid-19 pandemic.
- Although the Employee alleged that she her refusal to be vaccinated was due to the potential side effects, she admitted that her concerns were based on “news” and social media, not on any advice from medical professionals. In fact, during cross-examination, she admitted that her doctors recommended her to take the vaccine.
- Given that the Claimant’s job scope is to provide administrative support to the Company’s Operations Department, she is required to be physically present in the office. The Employee’s refusal to return to work amounted to her neglect of duties, constituting misconduct that warrants her dismissal.
Key Takeaways
This case reinforces the principle that insubordination, particularly when repeated and deliberate, can constitute just cause for dismissal. The Court emphasized that an employee’s refusal to follow lawful and reasonable instructions, such as returning to the office or complying with health and safety policies, amounts to serious misconduct. Even where an employee raises objections, those objections must be reasonable and supported with valid justification; mere personal belief may be insufficient to justify insubordination.
Being reasonable isn’t just the responsibility of the employer. Employees should similarly act reasonably. The employer in this case had taken reasonable steps to accommodate the employee’s concerns by offering alternatives, including regular PCR testing or providing a medical exemption based on a medical report. The employee’s refusal to comply with either option, coupled with her continued absence from the workplace, demonstrated a pattern of wilful defiance, that warranted nothing less than immediate dismissal.
***
This article was written by Hooi Kit Yi (Associate) from 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.
