Petronas mendapat pujian Mahkamah Perusahaan kerana memecat pegawai kanan didapati bersalah lakukan gangguan seksual

ultra78 · Post time 18-9-2024 05:42 PM

Court praises Petronas for not tolerating sexual harassment at workplace
K. Parkaran
-
17 Sep 2024, 07:00 AM

Gambar Hiasan

Industrial Court says the energy giant was justified in dismissing a long-serving senior officer following sexual harassment complaints made by four subordinates.

PETALING JAYA: The Kuala Lumpur Industrial Court has praised Petronas for sacking a senior officer after due inquiry, saying harassment of a sexual nature at the workplace must not be tolerated under any circumstances.

The right to livelihood is as fundamental as the right to life itself. Any employee in search of this right should be allowed to do so in a safe and secure working environment, free of any aggression or harassment from other employees or superiors, court chairman Eswary Maree said.

In a 64-page award released earlier this month, she said that outright dismissal from employment may be justified in serious cases.

Eswary was presiding over a case in which four female subordinates lodged sexual harassment complaints against the claimant. Three were foreign nationals – two Iraqis and an Iranian.

The complaints related to incidents which occurred between 2015 and 2018 in Dubai when the claimant was seconded to two of the energy giant’s subsidiaries in the Middle East.

In her award, Eswary commended Petronas for taking the complaints seriously and acting to protect its employees from further intimidation and humiliation.

“It is the duty of the company to ensure that such acts are not committed by any person, what more the claimant who is legally qualified and held the position of a senior officer in the company.

The company had taken the best solution for a greater working environment by dismissing the claimant, she said.

Eswary said the claimant’s explanation when defending himself against the eight charges brought by the company against him was wholly unacceptable.

She said he should have exercised caution especially given his superior position in the organisation and his legal qualifications. As head of department, and with subordinates reporting to him, he ought to have led his department by example, she added.

“The claimant is expected to possess a greater degree of integrity and honesty and to ensure a safe environment for his subordinates.

Instead, he was the person intoxicating the working environment with an obnoxious, intolerable and unacceptable behaviour, said Eeswary.

The claimant joined Petronas in 1990.

He was seconded to Dubai in 2015, accompanied by his wife and three school going children whose expenses were funded entirely by the company.

His last drawn salary was RM41,797 per month. He also received an additional salary roughtly equivalent to RM64,000 from a Petronas joint venture entity during his secondment.

The claimant was dismissed after a domestic inquiry found him guilty of all eight charges in 2018.

He was accused of rubbing his genitalia while staring at a subordinate’s body, asking why they were unmarried, telling one of them to marry him, and leaning over to whisper into another’s ear despite her protestations that it was inappropriate.

He was also accused of suggesting that a female officer liaise with the legal team from another entity so that she could wink-wink and gedik-gedik (flirt) with them.

Another complaint involved the claimant telling an Iraqi man that one of his subordinates was single, and offered her to him in marriage.

In her testimony, the particular complainant said: Offering me to a man who was my father’s age and married – that was absolute sexual harassment to me.

The claimant’s case was that his remarks were meant as compliments but said he could not recall the exact words he had used. He also said no physical contact, or threat of physical contact, was involved.

At best they may have been a matter of choice of words, or insinuation incorrectly inferred, or incorrectly perceived actions. Such determination is open to subjectivity and is therefore not without flaws, he said, adding that he had no sinister intention.

The claimant further contended that he had served the company with dedication and integrity, and that between 2013 and 2015 he had headed a unit almost entirely made up of female lawyers who had no complaints about his conduct.

He added that he possessed an unblemished record throughout his long career with Petronas.

Eswary ruled that the claimant had violated both Petronas’s code of conduct and normal standards of acceptable behaviour at the workplace.

She said the claimant knew the substance of the allegations made against him and was able to prepare a proper defence for it.

“The material particulars of each allegation i.e. name of complainant, location of where the allegation took place, the time period and the alleged acts of misconduct, had been stated clearly in the charges.

This court had taken cognisance of the fact that the domestic inquiry panel had observed the principles of natural justice and had accorded the claimant the opportunity to answer the charges of misconduct levelled against him, she said.

Eswary held that Petronas had successfully proved the appropriateness of its actions against the claimant on a balance of probabilities.

In the circumstances of this case, it is unreasonable to expect the company to have continued the claimant’s employment, she said.

Wong Keat Ching and Loh Qiao Wen appeared for the company.

The claimant, whose identity is being withheld, was represented by Gerard Louis Ambrose and Toon Zuyin.