Court chairman Augustine Anthony said it was imperative that employers keep proper documentation of the interview process, including by taking minutes.
He made the remark when allowing an unfair dismissal claim by a former UiTM Holdings Sdn Bhd assistant manager who was serving a probationary period of six months in the company’s human capital department.
Anthony said it was not disputed that Sharifah Rozaitul Akma Syed Zahir had been hand-picked to work for the company after a meeting with group chief operating officer (GCOO) Dr Ainul Azreen Adam in a coffee shop in December 2021 while she was gainfully employed elsewhere.
“However, the manner in which the claimant was interviewed for her role in the company reveals much about how its officers carry out their duties.
“It is timely for this court to emphasise that interviews of the potential employees in the company are best carried out in a work environment, and not in coffee shops, as testified by the claimant,” the chairman said in his 42-page award released on Thursday.
Anthony said doing so would instil professionalism and ensure that proper documentation of the interview process is kept and minutes taken.
Having considered the evidence before him, Anthony awarded the claimant 12 months’ backwages, the maximum permitted by law for a probationer, worth RM60,000.
“This court makes no order for any compensation in lieu of reinstatement as the claimant had not served the company for a minimum period of one year of service and also due to the claimant being a probationer at the time of dismissal,” he added.
Sharifah Rozaitul commenced employment on Jan 17, 2022 and was tasked with overseeing the company’s entire human resource functions, including payroll, recruitment and staff discipline.
However, she was suddenly transferred to the GCOO’s office on March, 30, 2022, purportedly for what the company described as “unsatisfactory work”.
“It is the claimant’s version that she was performing well in the group human capital department until she was transferred to the GCOO’s office which left her with little or no work to be carried out as she was not given any job description or duties and only had minimal communication with her GCOO.
“It is also the claimant’s version that throughout her employment, the company failed to address her performance as no performance appraisal was undertaken and the company also failed to comply with the procedure on probation and confirmation,” Anthony said in his award.
On June 29, 2022, the claimant was notified that she will not be confirmed in her employment due to poor performance and a below-average rating as a probationer.
Anthony said it must be borne in mind that the claimant was at the material time under probation for a specific job and responsibilities.
“The company must give the claimant sufficient time to acclimatise in her new job environment and it is for that purpose she was put on probation,” he said.
Further, he said, the evidence strongly suggests that she was uprooted from the job for which she was employed and given insignificant work unbefitting of her role as assistant manager.
Anthony said he was convinced that the claimant had no real job or tasks in the GCOO’s office and that “she was left idling most of the time”.
“This court is convinced that she was not assessed properly on her performance during her probation and the company’s rating of the claimant as below average is fundamentally flawed,” he said.
Lawyers Balan S. Nair and Ong Ewe Lim represented Sharifah Rozaitul while Mokhzani Harris Yusof appeared for the company.