When hiring new employees, employers will usually put them on a “probation”. The purpose of the probationary period is to allow employers to assess whether the new employee is suitable for the role and whether they will be a good fit for the company. The probationary period is meant to provide employers with sufficient time to evaluate and review their new employees’ performance before confirming them as permanent staff. Although going through a probationary period is fairly common, there are many things about probationers which are frequently misunderstood by employees and employers alike. Here are 5 important things you should know about probationers in Malaysia.
There is no statutory definition of what is a “probationer”. However, case law does distinguish between a confirmed employee and a probationer. Broadly speaking, a probationer is a new employee who is going through a ‘trial’ period in an employment to prove his/her fitness for the position which was offered by the employer.
There is no legal requirement to put an employee on probation before they are hired, although this is recommended as a best practice. There is also no legal “minimum” or “maximum” probationary period that needs to be imposed although a probationary period in the range of 3 – 6 months is common.
Like a confirmed employee, a probationer has a right to make a representation to the Director-General for Industrial Relations under Section 20 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 for unfair dismissal if they feel they have been unfairly dismissed. The difference between a probationer and a permanent staff is in the remedy. If the Court finds that his/her service is terminated without just and cause, the probationer is entitled to compensation in lieu of reinstatement of a maximum of 12 months’ backwages based on the last drawn salary. (Confirmed staff are entitled to a maximum of 24 months’ backwages).
While termination of a probationer must be with “just cause or excuse”, the law recognises that the standard of proof required of the employer is lower when it comes to probationers. This is because employers have a general prerogative to choose and organise their workforce however they see fit, subject to compliance with labour laws of course.
A surprising number of people actually spend years working for the same company without ever receiving a confirmation letter. These employees assume they have been “automatically” confirmed since their probation period was completed without any comments from the employer. This is actually a misconception as the law provides that a probationer remains on probation until he receives notice that he has been terminated or confirmed. However, confirmation can be implied by conduct, if the employer treats the probationer as a permanent staff (For example, giving him the same benefits that would be received by a permanent staff). The importance of a confirmation letter should therefore not be underestimated.
It is good practice for employers to monitor their employees’ probationary periods. At the end of the probationary period, employers should notify the employee whether they have been confirmed, terminated, or if their probationary period is being extended.
Suitability of a probationer is not just based on work performance but also his/her conduct, behaviour and attitudes in relation to the position he/her is employed. With regard to work performance, the probationer is assessed in 3 broad aspects: – (1) Inefficiency; (2) Incompetence and (3) Ineptitude. (Samsuddin Mat Amin v. Austral Enterprises Berhad [Award No. 47 of 1974])
In a nutshell, the test is “whether the probationer possesses the right skill, competence, temperament, aptitude, attitude and suitability which will entitle him to transcend from being a probationer to that of a confirmed permanent employee.” (Indra Devi Rajoo v. Everhome Furniture MFR (M) Sdn Bhd [2015] 2 LNS 0093)
If the probationer still fails to improve his/her performance after such steps have been taken by the employer, the Court would more likely to determine that the termination was with just cause and excuse.
About the author: Joanne Ong is an associate in the dispute resolution practice group of Donovan & Ho. She graduated with a LLB (Hons) from the University of Manchester and is an advocate and solicitor of the High Court of Malaya. She has worked worked on a wide range of dispute matters involving unfair dismissal claims, debt recovery, conspiracy, fraud, land, bankruptcy, insolvency and defamation. Have a question? Contact us.
