Generally, a failure to comply with an existing policy or Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) may be deemed as a serious misconduct which warrants a dismissal. However, in some instances, employees may claim that they were not aware of the policy or SOP. Can such a claim hold up in the Industrial Court? Can an employee avoid accountability by claiming ignorance of the policy or SOP?

The cases below highlight the Court’s views in respect of this issue. Please note that these views do not apply to all circumstances and should be considered on a case-by-case basis. That being said, we have also provided some guidelines that companies may adopt to prevent or rebut such claims in the Industrial Court.

a) Motorola Malaysia Sdn Bhd v. Ng Thien Keong & Anor [2011] 4 ILR 13

“…Similarly the issue of the SOP was not raised when the 1st respondent testified in court. Therefore the evidence shows that insofar as the 1st respondent is concerned the SOP was not an issue. The Industrial Court failed to consider that the 1st respondent never contended that he had no knowledge of the SOP. The Industrial Court failed to consider that the 1st respondent had been in the applicant’s employment since 1978 and it would be reasonable to infer that such a long serving employee would know of his employer’s standard operating procedures that governs his conduct as an employee. In any event counsel for the 1st respondent was at liberty to raise the issue of the SOP with the applicant’s witnesses but it was not done.”

b) Pang Kang Leung v. UMW Toyota Sdn Bhd [2017] 1 ILR 361

“[44] In all the charges above, the claimant claims that he is not aware of the company’s SOP as he was never given a copy ever since he joined the company. This to me is unacceptable considering that he has been working with the company for 8 years as SA. Further, COW5 in his evidence testified that he use the 3 in 1 system SOP to brief to the sales advisors during meetings and highlight to them the SOP whenever it is relevant and necessary. Thus based on the evidence adduced before me, this court finds that the company has proven that the claimant has breached the company’s SOP.”

c) Norkhairul Izam Kassim v. Bank Muamalat (M) Berhad [2018] 2 LNS 0375 

“44. Notwithstanding the above, the Claimant during the interview had admitted that he knew about the SOPs’ for opening of savings account and application for ATM card in the Company (COB page 1). Moreover, the Claimant, in his evidence before this Court had admitted that he was aware of the existence of the SOPs’. When questioned by this Court if it was the responsibility of an employee to read and know the SOPs’ of the Company, the Claimant agreed it was; but he contended that he did not read the SOPs’ because he was too lazy to do so. The Claimant’s response clearly demonstrated his willful ignorance of the SOPs’ put in place by the Company; and obviously such ignorance was not an excuse for him not to comply with the said procedures; and then later turnabout and say he had no knowledge about the procedures in place. Further, the Claimant’s contention that he was not aware of the SOPs’ was unacceptable, as the Claimant was a long-serving employee of the Company; he ought to have known the correct procedures, rules and SOPs’ which governed his duties and responsibilities as a bank officer.”

Based on the foregoing, the Industrial Court considered the fact that the said employees were long serving employees and ought to have known the SOPs. Further, an employee’s wilful ignorance of the SOPs put in place by the Company does not constitute a reasonable ground for not complying with the SOPs.

Regardless, Companies will need to take proactive steps to safeguard themselves against such claims. Below are some guidelines to ensure that employees are aware of policies and SOPs which are in place.