A Study on Wrongful Termination in Malaysia

Given the culture these days of “No Win - No Fee” solicitors, the majority of employers have legal expenses cover that allows them to be guided through all employment issues by professionals who have the expertise in employment law. Owners/managers are advised to use this service for even the smallest employment issue as not following due process can prove costly for employers. In addition, these experts and the advice they give are non-biased and in accordance with current employment legislation.

To protect companies for wrongful discharge claims they must do so in a professional and respectful manner. Companies must be sure the employee understand they are being asked to resign and why. For instance, stating the detailed reasons about what the employee did wrong and how long the inappropriate behaviors happened. Insure that the reasons for termination were all in accordance with the supervisory manual made and provided by companies.

In dealing with a person’s livelihood, and often, sense of self, it is of no surprise that ethical issues regarding employment practices are of great concern. The issues of employment at will and due process contracts in the workplace are among the most widely contentious in the realm of employment. Employment at will is the doctrine that employment may be ended, by either party, for good, bad or no cause at all.1 Due process, on the other hand, is the employment practice in which a person may appeal a decision as a means of receiving an explanation and the opportunity to argue against it.2 Employment at will is the standard in the majority of private corporations today and is argued for relentlessly by freedom of contract enthusiasts,

The company has the right to terminate an employee as long as the termination does not discriminate or

Wrongful Termination (a.k.a. Wrongful Dismissal) is a legal phrase that refers to any situation in which a worker’s employment is ended by the employer (terminated) in breach of contractual terms of employment, or due to any of the following: discrimination, retaliation, an employee’s refusal to be involved in illegal activity, or an employer’s

The legal process within the human resources department tries to format strategies and alliances that avoid negative activities affecting the employers and employees; however, exhibitions using common sense or compassion can conflict with these guidelines creating inappropriate behaviors. If this becomes the case, disciplinary actions begin bringing about other matters of legal issues. Nevertheless, once an individual believes they have been illegally mistreated, they become more apt to submit a lawsuit for purposes of revenge, financial struggles, or inapt employment securities (Alboher, 2012).

2. How to ensure that the dismissals are fair and the importance of this to both the employer and employee.

In a wrongful termination case, the terminated employee must prove more than having been treated unfairly, s/he must be able to prove one or more of his/her legal rights were violated” (Wrongful Termination Website, 2011). Employees in many states are at a disadvantage, possessing few rights, because of the employment at will rule, meaning employers can fire employees at any time and for no reason at all, just like employees can quit any time and for any reason. This makes the definition of wrongful termination extremely narrow.

Message 4: It is not uncommon for an employee to be in disagreement with an employer’s decision to terminate employment. An alternative we may try is to set up a meeting of the workers peers and give them the facts of the situation and let them decide if the termination was wrongful. The group of peers would be persons from a location other than the employees own. These individuals would hear the facts of the case from both the businesses’ and the employees. In order to qualify the termination would need to meet certain criteria. It would be required to be an established company guideline or process for which the employee was terminated and store leadership must be able to present all documentation that lead to the termination. This would require leadership to have followed the processes leading to termination. For the employee it would let them have a voice in their termination and to hear whether their peers agree with the employer or the employee.

Bennett-Alexander, D., & Hartman, L. (2009). Employment law for business. (6 ed., pp. 247-249). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

When we are dealing with the employment relationship between employers and employees, ethical issues are most likely to emerge. Especially, if a manager fires a worker without a proper reason, critics will follow this employer’s behavior. In Patricia Werhane’s paper, “Employment at Will and Due Process”, discusses two doctrines which are Employment at Will (EAW) and Due Process. It also addresses some justifications and objections for EAW, and shows Werhane’s supportive view to Due Process. In contrast, EAW is defended by Richard Epstein in his article “In Defense of the Contract at Will”. In my paper, I will attempt to develop my argument in favor of Employment at Will that could improve flexibility and efficiency of

The statutory claim for unfair dismissal recognises that the common law cannot give adequate protection to the employees through the contract of employment, in that wrongful dismissal claim depends upon a breach of contract of the employment, usually in the form of inadequate notice being given by the employer. Many dismissals can be considered unfair that do not amount to the breach of the contract, for the wrongful dismissal claims look not to intention, motive, or the effect on an employee of a termination of the relationship nor to the procedural protections, but merely to the form of in which that relationship has been brought to the end. This paper will compare and contrast the different area between wrongful dismissal and unfair dismissal.

In the UK most employment law is considered as a civil or private law and is enforced as a result of one party suing another. The primary outcomes sought is usually that of compensation. Cases brought before the court are generally made by a former or existing employee or a failed job applicant and they use the courts system to allege that their employer has in some way caused a detriment and has done this in contravention on the law.

The essence of the public-policy exception is that an employee will have a cognizable claim for wrongful discharge if the discharge of the employee contravenes a clear mandate of public policy. Claims for wrongful discharge under the public-policy exception have included termination of employees for: (1) refusal to participate in illegal activity, (2) the employee's refusal to forsake the performance of an important public duty or obligation, (3) the employee's refusal to forego the exercise of a job-related legal right or privilege, (4) the employee's "whistleblowing" activity or other

A similar case where an employee claimed unlawful termination in comparable circumstances is Megivern v Glacier Hills Incorporated. In this case the employee, Megivern, alleged that her employer, Glacier Hills Inc. unlawfully terminated her due to her pregnancy. The judgement was ultimately given to Glacier Hills Inc and the termination was sustained. Glacier Hills was able to show the reasoning surrounding Megivern’s termination by providing her performance records. Megivern was a less than desirable employee and the timing of her termination was not due to pregnancy (Megivern v. Glacier Hills