A former AirAsia steward has been awarded RM31,920 in compensation after the Industrial Court ruled that his dismissal over private social media posts was without just cause or excuse. Chairman Pravin Kaur Jessy held that Hyffny Yusof's comments on his personal Facebook and Instagram accounts did not constitute serious misconduct, as the posts were made privately, off-duty, and caused no proven harm to the airline's reputation.
This is more REALISTIC - but then, we ask how come the AWARD was so low despite the fact that this employee, who was wrongfully dismissed on 2/2/2023 - that is about 31 months ago received so little - was she earning only about RM1,000 plus monthly salary???
This is because the EMPLOYMENT ACT was amended by the then BN regime in 2008 in favour of EMPLOYERS that now restrict BACKWAGES to no more than 24 Months - and further deducts also income that the wrongfully dismissed worker - unemployed had to take to survive. RIGHTFULLY when the court decides a worker has been WRONGFULLY DISMISSED by any employer, the COMPENSATION that the worker should receive should be backwages from the date of wrongful dismissal until the date of Judgment(OR date of REINSTATEMENT) which would also take into account increase of wages and other benefits like BONUSES, etc that the dismissed worker would have received if not for the wrongful dismissal - So, if we re-calculate assuming the worker received RM1,500-00 as Minimum Wages(not yet taking into account pay rise, bonuses, etc...) - that former Air Asia Steward should at least have got RM46,500 - not just RM31,920.
That new SECOND Schedule that was introduced by BN regime in 2008 - that ought to be repealed a government that wants to restore JUSTICE for workers is as follows:
FACTORS FOR CONSIDERATION IN MAKING AN AWARD IN RELATION TO A REFERENCE UNDER SUBSECTION 20(3) 1. In the event that backwages are to be given, such backwages shall not exceed twenty-four months' backwages from the date of dismissal based on the last-drawn salary of the person who has been dismissed without just cause or excuse;
2. In the case of a probationer who has been dismissed without just cause or excuse, any backwages given shall not exceed twelve months' backwages from the date of dismissal based on his last-drawn salary;
3. Where there is post-dismissal earnings, a percentage of such earnings, to be decided by the Court, shall be deducted from the backwages given;
4. Any relief given shall not include any compensation for loss of future earnings; and
5. Any relief given shall take into account contributory misconduct of the workman.
Steven Sim, our MADANI Human Resource Minister must immediately repeal that Second Schedule of Industrial Relations Act 1967 that is definitely 'anti-worker' - and bring it back to what it was before - so that if the COURT decides it is WRONGFUL DISMISSAL - the compensation for back wages should be backwages from the date of wrongful dismissal until the date of Judgment(OR date of REINSTATEMENT) which would also take into account increase of wages and other benefits like BONUSES, etc that the dismissed worker would have received if not for the wrongful dismissal - there must be NO deduction of wages because unemployed worker found other work/income as he/she waited for the case to be over - and such cases MUST Start and end FAST - not more than 3 months(certainly not more than 6 Months.)
INJUSTICE to the worker - the Claim was for REINSTATEMENT - and so why give the unjust remedy of 'Compensation In Lieu of Reinstatement) - If the Worker had been REINSTATED, he/she will automatically get ALL backwages from the date of wrongful dismissal until the date of REINSTATEMENT - which would also take into account increase of wages and other benefits like BONUSES, etc that the dismissed worker would have received if not for the wrongful dismissal.
SO, was it VICTORY for the Worker? NOT really - because she/he did not get back her job - REMEMBER 'wrongful dismissal' is a tool used to get rid of Union leaders or active Union Members(UNION BUSTING) - Now, if the worker is NOT REINSTATED back to his/her JOB - it is a VICTORY for that bad employer - the employer has successfully got rid of the worker, maybe a strong Union Member and a leader/potential leader of the UNION - Here is where the INJUSTICE is - WILL this MADANI GOVERNMENT repeal all those anti-worker provisions..
SECOND POINT - the court affirmed that the workers online activities and freedom of expression is NO JUSTIFICATION for an employer to TERMINATE a worker - the Employer does not control the actions and/or the freedom of expression on any worker - more so outside work, in one's private life...
Hyffny, who joined AirAsia in 2017, was dismissed on Feb 2, 2023, after he was accused of uploading inappropriate remarks that allegedly disparaged the company and its staff.The low-budget airline claimed Hyffny's conduct had breached its disciplinary and social media policies.
However, the court found that the postings were restricted to his circle of friends and written out of frustration following a 12-hour flight delay, during which the crew were reportedly left waiting without proper rest or meals. "The language used was unguarded, not insubordinate. Absent proof of malice or reputational harm, the conduct cannot amount to serious misconduct," the chairman said in her grounds of judgment dated Oct 30. The court said the dismissal was disproportionate, noting that industrial discipline must be balanced with fairness and human understanding.
It ruled that AirAsia's broad application of its social media policy intruded into the employee's right to privacy and free expression. "This case exemplifies the fine balance that must be maintained between managerial prerogative and human dignity."Employers are entitled to preserve discipline and protect their corporate image; employees, equally, retain their constitutional freedoms and personal integrity.
One wonders HOW the Employer even got access to these 'PRIVATE' Communications - Should Employers be allowed to SPY on their Employee's private communication, and out of work activities?
Most online communications are NOT Communications to the World at Large - put are PRIVATE Communications to friends - even when one post in a GROUP, it is a private communications.
UNIONS too sometimes have ONLINE Group Chats - where members do highlight possible wrongs of employers > IT is absurd if EMPLOYERS can 'SPY' on such private communications - and then use it as a basis of taking DISCIPLINARY actions against Employees.
Employees can also complain to the world at large - incidents of wrongdoings that the feel they are victims of - what is WRONG with that. It is norm for workers to 'complain' about wrongs that they believe happened to them to family and friends - in the past it may be through face to face encounters, over the phone ....BUT things have changed and the means of private communication is today using the various online apps and methods ... AND the Employer or their AGENTS have no business spying on their workers...
What is a PICKET, which is LEGAL in Malaysia - it allows workers to publicly HIGHLIGHT wrongs of their employer - so, the right of workers to highlight wrongs and grievances against EMPLOYER is acknowledged in law, is it not?
# There is a relation with the recent case of RHB's 'termination' of an employee - because she re-posted an graphic of Anwar Ibrahim in an Isreali flag - here it was worse, it had nothing to do even with the employer itself.... [Apparently, in the RHB's case, the worker is not a UNION member - for if she was, the UNION would have reacted very strongly] ..
RHB - What is Our Response - WORKER rights - Employer terminating employment, or 'forcing' resignation because of non-workplace misconduct? Employer's Right to Control our Freedoms/Rights in our personal life? REINSTATE Siti
### How much does a wrongful dismissed worker reasonably spend in his/her quest for Justice - legal fees, cost of transport, loss of 'income' to attend court, taking of 'annual leave' as Malaysia still does not have PAID Leave to attend court as party or witness, ... Spend RM10,000 plus, and get a compensation of RM31,000????? - JUST or NOT JUST
#### Too many workers just do not use the Industrial Court - Minister should tell us how many poor workers use the Industrial Court to claim for wrongful dismissal - most media reports are about high-income workers - so, how many low income workers use this access to Justice avenue, if NOT WHY?
Ex-AirAsia steward awarded RM31,920 over unfair dismissal
KUALA LUMPUR: A former AirAsia steward has been awarded RM31,920 in compensation after the Industrial Court ruled that his dismissal over private social media posts was without just cause or excuse.
Chairman Pravin Kaur Jessy held that Hyffny Yusof's comments on his personal Facebook and Instagram accounts did not constitute serious misconduct, as the posts were made privately, off-duty, and caused no proven harm to the airline's reputation.
Hyffny, who joined AirAsia in 2017, was dismissed on Feb 2, 2023, after he was accused of uploading inappropriate remarks that allegedly disparaged the company and its staff.
The low-budget airline claimed Hyffny's conduct had breached its disciplinary and social media policies.
However, the court found that the postings were restricted to his circle of friends and written out of frustration following a 12-hour flight delay, during which the crew were reportedly left waiting without proper rest or meals.
"The language used was unguarded, not insubordinate. Absent proof of malice or reputational harm, the conduct cannot amount to serious misconduct," the chairman said in her grounds of judgment dated Oct 30.
The court said the dismissal was disproportionate, noting that industrial discipline must be balanced with fairness and human understanding.
It ruled that AirAsia's broad application of its social media policy intruded into the employee's right to privacy and free expression.
"This case exemplifies the fine balance that must be maintained between managerial prerogative and human dignity.
"Employers are entitled to preserve discipline and protect their corporate image; employees, equally, retain their constitutional freedoms and personal integrity.
"The equilibrium lies in ensuring that discipline does not descend into domination, and that liberty does not devolve into licence," she said.
While finding that Hyffny's use of the word "idiots" to describe certain executives was intemperate and amounted to contributory misconduct, the court concluded that termination was too harsh.
AirAsia was ordered to pay RM31,920, representing back wages and compensation in lieu of reinstatement, within 30 days, with interest of eight per cent per annum if unpaid thereafter.
"To punish mere impropriety without proof of harm would offend the principles of equity and good conscience that underlie the Industrial Relations Act," she added.
Ismail Nasaruddin from National Union of Flight Attendants (Nufam) appeared for the claimant while Sebastian Tay Hanxin and Rebecca Sonali Alfred represented the airline. - NST, 3/11/2025
The Industrial Court ruled on Oct 30 last week that AirAsia Berhad was wrong to dismiss an employee for venting about his work frustrations and calling executives idiots in private social media posts.
The court then ordered the company to pay RM31,920 to the former flight attendant, Hyffny Yusof, for wrongful dismissal over the Instagram and Facebook posts.
Court chairperson Pravin Kaur Jessy ruled that the company had failed to show how Hyffny’s remarks had harmed the airline and found the sacking unfair to the former employee.
“When considered against the totality of evidence, the company has failed to demonstrate that the claimant’s conduct caused reputational harm, breached confidentiality, or undermined the relationship of trust and confidence.
“To dismiss an employee for a private moment of frustration, devoid of public harm, is to punish beyond the limits of fairness and humanity,” Pravin said in a written judgment Malaysiakini sighted.
In Hyffny’s social media posts, the former steward had complained about being stranded at the airport for more than 12 hours on duty, where he had also alluded to the company’s negligence of staff wellbeing.
Signed on yesterday at 0634. Stranded at airport for more than 12 hours, back to base near 0230… None of the so-called execs (idiots to me) called and checked on our situation!
“We had to call and inform them of our situation… No hotel given to us except to stay at the airport lounge, and food was provided after our captain fought for us… kudos AirAsia… Fatigue is not even qualified to describe as!” read his Instagram and Facebook posts, quoted in the court judgment.
Hyffny was then been suspended from duty without warning and reprimanded by the airline. He later lodged a police report against the company, alleging unauthorised access and misuse of his private social media posts, shortly before being terminated in February 2023.
The former flight attendant had insisted that his social media posts were limited to personal use amongst close friends and family members, and that they had not been available to the public.
“I was surprised that my personal online postings were also screen-grabbed by someone unknown to me and that material is now being used against me…
“There are many awkward postings and comments posted on social media daily by other staff, but I am surprised why I have been singled out amongst others,” he said.
Misconduct, not dismissible offence
The court eventually ruled that a dismissal is warranted only when misconduct destroys the bond of trust, and that in Hyffny’s case, no such destruction had been proven.
“The claimant’s post, though ill-advised, reflected a transient lapse of discretion, not an act of defiance.
“While (their) words were intemperate, the postings were primarily true, made privately, without public dissemination or harm to the company’s reputation.
“While the posting was not malicious or defamatory, the language used was regrettable and deserving of censure.
“The court therefore regards the claimant’s conduct as constituting contributory misconduct, but not a dismissible offence,” the chairperson, Pravin, said in her judgment.
Further, she explained how employers, despite being legally entitled to protect their image and preserve discipline, should nevertheless also respect employees’ constitutional freedoms and personal integrity.
Hyffny had been represented by Ismail Nasaruddin from the National Union of Flight Attendants Malaysia, while the defendant had been represented by Sebastian Tay Hanxin and Rebecca Sonali Alfred from Messrs T Thavalingam & Co.
AirAsia was ordered to pay RM31,920, representing back wages and compensation in lieu of reinstatement, within 30 days, with interest of eight percent per annum if unpaid thereafter. - Malaysiakini, 3/11/2025.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment