In TLK v Platinum Phase Sdn Bhd [2025] ILJU 240, the Industrial Court looked closely at a common HR practice: the exit interview. When a team faces a high turnover rate, it is common for employers to look for the root cause and an exit interview may sometimes share some light over why employees are leaving. Occasionally, the exit interviews may reveal a common thread.
Background Facts
The claimant, an Accounts Manager, was dismissed on the grounds of poor communication, lack of cooperation, and overall negative behaviour. To justify the dismissal, the Company relied heavily on exit interview forms completed by employees who had resigned earlier, claiming that the forms showed the Claimant created a stressful and unpleasant working environment.
However, none of these exit interview allegations were raised with the Claimant during her employment. She did not receive any warning letters or show cause letters about the complaints in the exit interviews.
Court’s Findings
The Court found that exit interviews do not on their own prove misconduct. They are “not cogent evidence to conclude that the Claimant was an intolerable superior”.
Further, some resignations had occurred much earlier, and the comments only appeared in the exit interview forms executed months later. This delay undermined the credibility and reliability of the statements.
The Court also highlighted that several subordinates had resigned without expressing dissatisfaction in their resignation letters. Only during the exit interviews did some describe the claimant as “annoying,” “stressful,” or difficult to work with. The Court treated these descriptions with caution, given they were never communicated to the Claimant earlier, and there was no evidence she was ever given the opportunity to respond.
The Court also observed that the issues raised were largely rooted in personality differences, particularly the claimant’s “perfectionist” working style. After her termination, the Claimant contacted the Company’s stakeholders to ensure that none of her responsibilities were left pending. The Court viewed this as evidence of her dedication and accountability, noting that she was “a responsible person who tries to achieve perfection in her tasks”.
Even the Company’s witnesses acknowledged during cross-examination that the Claimant was knowledgeable, dedicated, and had a high work volume. There was no evidence that the Claimant used abusive or vulgar language.
Therefore, the disagreements therefore appeared to stem from preference. Her meticulous approach was not liked by some subordinates, but this does not amount to misconduct.
The Court held:
“As long as the superior fulfils her responsibilities following the Company’s guidelines and regulations, the subordinate[s] should respect the chair. This means respecting the authority or leadership, not necessarily the individual in that role. It is important to demonstrate their commitment to collaborate with [their supervisor] constructively and respectfully.”
The Court held that an exit interview cannot replace proper disciplinary procedure. Employers should still raise concerns directly with the employee and provide them an opportunity to respond. Supporting evidence should be obtained to verify the allegations. By skipping these steps and relying on the exit interviews alone, the Company failed to meet the threshold of proving misconduct on a balance of probabilities.
Key Takeaway for Employers
Exit interviews should not be ignored. When used responsibly, they can help organisations improve. They are a legitimate source of information and may reveal patterns or concerns that need attention.
However, the exit interview’s role is primarily diagnostic. It is not meant to be a conclusive finding of guilt. If an exit interview surfaces allegations about misconduct or toxic behaviour, the employer should investigate the claim, seek corroborating evidence from witnesses or documents, assess whether the allegations are justified, and directly address the concerns with the accused employee if termination is being contemplated.
Without these steps, exit interviews on their own carry little weight. Relying on them with no other corroborative evidence or due process can create significant legal risk.
***
This article was written by Donovan Cheah (Partner) 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.
