The DI had found the claimant guilty of photographing the complainant without her consent, inviting her for a pizza treat, violating social distancing guidelines imposed during the Covid-19 pandemic, and passing a suggestive remark about marriage.

Court chairman S Vanithamany said the management of Empire Manufacturing Sdn Bhd actions were justified as it wanted to create a safe environment for the complainant.

“The (claimant was) seen in the CCTV footage walking behind the complainant although there was no sign of her inviting him. He also seems to have failed to keep the minimum two-metre distance during the pandemic.

“Moreover, the complainant was seen to have covered her face when the claimant was trying to take a wefie with her. This clearly showed unwillingness on her part,” she said in an award delivered late last year.

The DI panel found the claimant guilty and recommended that the claimant be suspended for three days, but the company demoted him from supervisor to line leader, cut his monthly salary by RM300, and withdrew his phone allowance, citing seriousness of his misconduct.

The company said the DI’s recommendation was too light having regard to its existing sexual harassment policy and disciplinary procedures.

The claimant, who joined the company in March 2020, objected to the punishment and appealed against it on Sept 4 the same year. He was told one day later that his appeal would be considered.

“On Sept 8, 2020, the firm held a review meeting and upheld the finding and punishment in the absence of concrete evidence to suggest that the complainant had fabricated (the complaint),” said Vanithamany.

The firm informed him of the decision and ordered him to report for duty on Sept 10.

However, the claimant refused and tendered his resignation on Sept 24. The company advised him to reconsider his decision, but he refused and filed a constructive dismissal case instead.

The claimant said he was forced to resign as he had not committed any wrongdoing and that the punishment meted out was unfair.

Vanithamany noted that the claimant had admitted that he had the habit of taking wefies. He said he knew that it was inappropriate in the working environment and apologised for doing so.

She also dismissed the claimant’s contention that the company’s disregard of the recommendation by the DI constituted a breach of contract, saying instead that management had the right to determine the punishment to be meted out based on the panel’s finding.

The court ruled that the firm was fully justified in demoting the claimant, given the severity of his misconduct and the irreparable loss of trust and confidence in him.