[1978] ICR 445<\/a> at page 451:<\/p>\n\n\n\n“Whenever a man is dismissed for incapacity or incompetence it is sufficient that the employer honestly believes on reasonable grounds that the man is incapable and incompetent.\u201c<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\nHowever this cannot be misconstrued that employers can simply exercise their right to terminate employee that they find are under-performing or performing below their expectation. Industrial jurisprudence dictates that though employers have the right to terminate any employee for poor performance but must afford the right of review and improvement to the employee<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Company in order to justify termination on grounds of poor performance must prove the following;<\/p>\n\n\n\n
- That the claimant was warned about his poor performance;<\/li>
- That the claimant was accorded sufficient opportunity to improve; and<\/li>
- That notwithstanding the above, the claimant failed to sufficiently improve his performance.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n
An employer cannot under any circumstances without complying to the three conditions above unilaterally decides without warning and affording opportunity to the employee exercising the right of termination.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Poor Performance must not be confused with Misconduct and to classify the same within the employee the employee handbook is a grave error. Employers cannot reply only on the reasoning that there were warnings issued but not providing any opportunity for improvement of performance to justify dismissal on grounds of poor performance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In Rooftech Sdn. Bhd. v. Holiday Inn, Penang \u201cInefficiency which discloses a course of negative conduct, no doubt is a sufficient ground for termination but there must necessarily be sufficient proof that a procedure has been followed. Ordinarily there must be sufficient written communications to the claimant in order to establish inefficiency or poor performance before the company can rely on it to justify dismissal. The company has failed to do so.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\nIn Project Sdn. Bhd. v. Tan Lee Seng, the learned chairman held \u201cDismissal for unsatisfactory work or incompetency should almost invariably have been preceded by warnings. In the event of poor performance being the reason for the dismissal one should always endeavour to show that the work complained of was performed subsequent to warnings\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\nThe Practical steps that have to be undertaken by employers are;<\/p>\n\n\n\n