Executive Summary
- A Malaysian court upheld the dismissal of a senior HR manager arrested for drug offenses.
- The tribunal ruled that an initial positive drug screening justified termination despite later negative lab results.
- The employee admitted to purchasing drugs online and lying to superiors about the reason for his absence.
- The court emphasized that senior executives hold a higher fiduciary duty and must maintain the company’s trust.
A Malaysian industrial court has ruled that a property holding company was justified in dismissing a senior human resources manager following his arrest during a police drug operation, rejecting the employee’s argument that subsequent laboratory tests were negative. The tribunal found that the worker’s initial positive screening, admission of drug use, and dishonesty toward superiors constituted serious misconduct warranting termination.
The employee, who served as the head of HR management for a subsidiary of a larger corporate group, was arrested on April 16, 2020, at his residence. According to court records, police intercepted a delivery driver possessing substances suspected to be methamphetamine and ecstasy. Officers confirmed the delivery address on the driver’s mobile application matched the worker’s apartment unit, leading to a raid and the subsequent arrest of the manager.
Following a suspension period, the company convened a domestic inquiry which found the worker guilty of four charges: testing positive for methamphetamine during initial police screening, attempting to purchase drugs, dishonesty regarding his absence from work, and tarnishing the company’s reputation. The worker challenged these findings, arguing that later pathology reports from the chemistry department returned negative results and that the internal inquiry was procedurally flawed.
The court dismissed the worker’s defense, citing his own voluntary statement to investigators in which he admitted to consuming methamphetamine four days prior to his arrest and purchasing the illicit substances via online banking. The presiding judge determined that the initial positive urine screening constituted serious misconduct, stating that whether the pathology department subsequently returned negative results was irrelevant to the integrity of the initial charge.
Judicial officials also scrutinized the worker’s communication with his superiors. Evidence presented during the hearing showed that while under police remand, the worker messaged his boss claiming he required emergency leave for “family matters.” The court ruled this was a deliberate concealment of facts, noting that the worker was not attending to a family emergency but was instead in police custody.
The ruling emphasized the worker’s role as a senior executive, stating that his position carried a fiduciary duty to act in the company’s best interests. The court concluded that no length of service could repair the shattered trust resulting from his involvement in drug-related activities and his deception regarding the arrest.
Legal Ramifications
This ruling reinforces the legal precedent that industrial tribunals place significant weight on the breach of trust and fiduciary duty inherent in senior leadership roles. The decision highlights that a criminal conviction is not a prerequisite for dismissal; rather, the employer must prove misconduct on the balance of probabilities. Furthermore, the court clarified that procedural irregularities in internal domestic inquiries can be cured during industrial court hearings if the underlying misconduct is substantiated by evidence. It is important to note that all individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
