Can an employee avoid disciplinary consequences by claiming not to have read messages in an official work group chat, especially where their own evidence suggests a deliberate refusal to comply?
The Industrial Court addressed this question in Llewellyn Chiou Chiat Ren v Sarawak Energy Berhad, where an employee was dismissed for prolonged absenteeism and repeated refusal to comply with an attendance reporting requirement. The decision stands out for how the employee’s own statements, in his written evidence, at his domestic inquiry and under cross-examination, were used to defeat his explanations.
Brief Facts
- The Claimant was a Senior Executive II (Exhibition & Digitalization) with the Company.
- In May 2024, the Claimant’s superior instructed her team to record their daily attendance through a Google Form, posting the link and reminders in the team’s WhatsApp group. The Claimant initially complied but later stopped submitting the form despite repeated reminders.
- Between May and September 2024, the Claimant was absent from work for 39 days without the Company’s prior approval.
- The Company issued a show cause letter charging the Claimant with absence without approval and failure to comply with his superior’s instruction to record his attendance.
- In response, the Claimant did not deny the absences but attributed them to medical conditions affecting his back and asked to work from home.
- A domestic inquiry found him guilty of both charges, and he was dismissed.
- The Claimant challenged his dismissal before the Industrial Court.
Court’s Findings
The Industrial Court held that the attendance reporting requirement was a reasonable order, introduced to track staff attendance and whereabouts. It found both the absenteeism and insubordination charges proven:
- The Claimant claimed that submitting the form was not mandatory, but admitted under cross-examination that his superior’s WhatsApp message stated that it was. He then claimed not to have seen the messages in the group chat. The Court found his evidence contradictory and rejected his explanation.
- The Claimant said he refused to fill in the form because he felt it was “dehumanising and humiliating”, and that he was “a grown man”. A colleague also told the domestic inquiry that the Claimant had said the form “does not make sense” and there was “no point filling out the form”. The Court found that these remarks showed wilful disobedience and a challenge to his superior’s authority.
- On absenteeism, the Court rejected the medical explanation. There was no evidence that the Claimant had told the Company of his condition or the reasons for his absences, produced medical certificates, or requested workplace arrangements to accommodate his condition. The Court therefore treated his request to work from home, first formally raised in his reply to the show cause letter, as an afterthought.
The Court upheld the dismissal.
Key Takeaways
The Claimant’s case failed largely because of his own words and conduct. His explanations kept shifting: he first said the attendance form was not mandatory, then agreed under cross-examination that his superior’s WhatsApp message said it was, and then claimed he had never seen the message or the reminders. His earlier compliance with the form also undercut any suggestion that he was unaware of the instruction.
More damaging still were his remarks about why he did not comply. He said he never filled in the form because he was “a grown man”. At the domestic inquiry, he agreed that he had personally chosen to ignore the instruction, which he found “dehumanising and humiliating”. Asked under cross-examination whether he had wilfully refused, he answered “yes”, while maintaining that he was unaware it was mandatory. The Court treated these remarks as evidence of wilful disobedience and a challenge to his superior’s authority, not oversight. It stressed that management decides how attendance is recorded: “His duty is only to obey.”
The key lesson is that an employee’s own words and behaviour can sometimes be the strongest evidence of misconduct. What an employee says in a witness statement, at a domestic inquiry or under cross-examination may reveal not just disagreement with a policy but a conscious decision to disregard a lawful instruction. Shifting explanations can also damage credibility across the board. For employers, the case shows the value of properly documenting disciplinary proceedings.
The case also confirms that employees cannot simply claim they did not read instructions posted in an official work WhatsApp group, as they are expected to keep up with such messages.
***
This article was written by Juhi Vora (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.
