Introduction
The Industrial Court in Norfaizal Bin Ismail v Sterling Drug (Malaya) Sdn Bhd1 upheld the dismissal of a Senior Line Leader who manipulated company documents to deceive the Company into believing that he had carried out his duties (i.e. conducting the in process checks (“IPC”) leak tests) when he had not done so.
Brief facts
The former employee was a Senior Line Leader whereby one of his key responsibilities was to conduct IPC leak tests on a commonly used pharmaceutical product (Panadol) prior to its release for sale to the public. Upon conducting the IPC leak tests, the former employee was required to record the results and observations in the Master Packaging Batch Record (“MPBR”).
Pursuant to a report of an incident involving a leak test failure for three out of 24 blisters of Panadol Extra Optizorb, the Company commenced investigations on the matter. The Company undertook backward tracing of the leak test results for the previous shift. Investigations revealed that the leak test results were indicated as “Pass” and that at the material time, the former employee was the Line Leader on duty.
It was subsequently revealed that the former employee had, on several occasions, recorded in the MPBR that leak tests had been conducted, with their results recorded as “Pass” when in fact such tests had not been carried out. Further verification through CCTV recordings showed that no one operated the IPC leak test machine during the date/timings in which they were alleged to have been carried out by the former employee.
The Company subsequently issued a show cause letter to the former employee. In his reply, the former employee admitted that he had not conducted the IPC leak tests on the various dates/timings stipulated in the show cause letter.
The Company convened a domestic inquiry to enquire into the matter. Upon completion of the inquiry, the panel of inquiry found the former employee guilty of the charges of misconduct levelled against him. The Company then terminated the former employee’s employment.
Industrial Court decision
The Industrial Court reaffirmed the principle that long service does not immunise an employee from dismissal where the misconduct committed is serious in nature.
The Industrial Court found that the misconduct committed by the former employee, particularly the falsification of operational records, constitutes serious misconduct. The Court also placed significant weight on the fact that the former employee had admitted during the proceedings that he had not conducted the requisite IPC leak tests.
The Court observed that recording the IPC leak tests as having been conducted and their results as “Pass” when in fact they had not been carried out, clearly demonstrates the former employee’s negligence in carrying out the duties and responsibilities entrusted to him. The former employee’s conduct further undermined the integrity of the Company’s quality assurance processes and exposed the Company to potential legal risks.
Consequently, the Industrial Court held that the former employee’s misconduct marred the trust and confidence that the Company had in him. In such circumstances, the Company was justified in concluding that the continuation of the employment relationship was no longer tenable in this case. Accordingly, the Court found that the dismissal of the former employee was with just cause and excuse.
Conclusion
This decision of the Industrial Court reaffirms the critical importance of integrity in the workplace, particularly in roles involving compliance, safety, and regulatory obligations. This case underscores that falsification of company records, even in the absence of proven harm, constitutes serious misconduct that warrant dismissal. Employers are entitled to take firm disciplinary action where such conduct undermines trust and exposes the organisation to operational, legal, or regulatory risks.
The Company was represented by Jamie Goh (Partner) and Chua Kim Lin (Associate) from the Firm’s Employment & Industrial Relations Practice Area.
Contact us for further information regarding employment and industrial relations matters.
Footnote:
- Award No 396 of 2026.
