The estate owner dismissed a rubber tapper as he did not accord him the respect as an employer. During muster all employees usually greet him “Tuan.” This tapper would not look him in the face and go about his chores while waiting for work instructions. The employer was aware that he could not dismiss an employee for not greeting him, especially one that was good at his work. He sought the advice of his Company lawyer who told him to sack him for damaging the rubber trees. He also added that he should allot the task to an unskilled employee when the regular employee is on leave or away from work and who would cause damage to the tree. He could then blame the regular employee for damage to the tree and dismiss him for that perceived flaw.
Following counsel’s advice he sacked the employee for poor workmanship and causing damage to the tree. The employee filed a case for unfair dismissal. When a date was set for conciliation, the employer brought his counsel to assist him. The workman was not represented and claimed it was not fair for the employer to bring in counsel when the matter involved the employer and his workman. The employer claimed that the counsel was not his spokesperson but only there to advise the employer. Both parties were informed that this was not a formal hearing but only a conciliatory meeting to iron out preliminary issues to enable the Director to make an informed decision on whether the claim merits the attention of the Minister.
The employer was given the opportunity to explain his stand and he claimed the workman had damaged 2 trees wilfully and since he did not have any satisfactory explanation save for a denial, he had no choice but to dismiss him. He produced a picture of the damaged tree as evidence.The workman when given the opportunity to state his case said, “I am a Class 1 tapper and have been in the rubber industry for more than 15 years. As a tapper I respect the rubber trees as they provide me with a livelihood. It is unthinkable that I should hurt the tree, that provides sustenance for me and my family. During my 15 years in the industry I have been hauled up for indiscipline but never been accused of hurting rubber trees. On the photo produced by the employer the workman said the image on the photo is of young rubber trees judging from the girth of the trees. I work on old trees where the girth of the trees are much larger”.
Accosted with this statement, the employer agreed the photo does not represent the trees the claimant was working on. He claimed he brought the photo for illustration purposes. He admitted the actual reasons for dismissing the claimant was his attitude towards the visitors and owners of the estate. When explained that this was not good reasons to dismiss a skilled employee, the employer agreed o reinstate him with no loss of pay.
All contents (c) Ganapathy Ramasamy, mynameisgana@blogspot.com
Images are for illustrative purposes only, and are sourced from the web. Please drop us a note if you are the owner and wish to be credited.

Comments
Post a Comment