Malaysia: Court backs firm in terminating worker over vaccine refusal

KUALA LUMPUR – The Industrial Court has ruled in favour of the oil and gas company, FPSO Ventures, affirming its right to sever ties with a worker who refused to take the Covid-19 vaccine in 2021, marking a significant legal moment in the pandemic-era workforce dynamics.

The employee, Khazarasul Asrar Mat Yunus, had been earmarked for an offshore oil rig assignment as part of the Kikeh project in Sabah. However, his refusal to comply with vaccination requirements became the wedge that drove the termination of his employment.

Chairman Salahudin Hidayat Shariff, in his ruling, clarified that Khazarasul's employment contract with FPSO Ventures was clear, stating his position as a senior technician for the Kikeh project. The company had agreed to employ him on a one-year contract from September 1, 2021, with a basic salary of RM7,000 per month (approximately US$1,500).

However, Khazarasul’s decision to decline the vaccine, despite the policy set by Petronas, the parent company overseeing offshore platform operations, set the stage for the dispute. Petronas had a stringent vaccination requirement for all personnel working on its platforms, and Khazarasul’s stance led to his eventual dismissal, Free Malaysia Today first reported.

Khazarasul had been quarantined in a hotel from September 3 to 22, 2021, alongside other employees, as part of the pre-departure process to begin work on the oil rig.

Declining workplace health requirements as a personal choice

During this period, the company gave him the opportunity to receive the vaccine, but he chose to decline. He cited his personal choice as the reason, rather than any medical exemption that would have justified his refusal. This decision stood in direct opposition to both FPSO Ventures' and Petronas' health and safety policies, which required full vaccination for all workers entering the platform.

Although Khazarasul’s employment contract did not explicitly mention vaccination, it did include provisions requiring employees to comply with the company’s health and safety policies, as well as those of Petronas. These policies were no mere suggestions—they were the backbone of the operational framework, designed to keep workers safe in an inherently risky environment.

Given that Petronas had a firm policy forbidding unvaccinated individuals from entering its offshore platform, FPSO Ventures claimed that it had no option but to rescind its job offer. The decision was not only a matter of policy compliance but also a way to maintain operational efficiency, as having unvaccinated workers on site would be too risky.

Khazarasul filed a claim for unfair dismissal under Section 20 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967, arguing that his termination was unjust. His legal team contended that he should have been reassigned to a different rig instead of being dismissed outright. However, the court found that the company had the right to assign employees to specific locations.

The court also noted that FPSO Ventures had taken reasonable steps to avoid disruption, ensuring that the operations in Sabah continued smoothly despite the hiccup in staffing.

Ultimately, the court ruled that FPSO Ventures had acted justifiably in terminating Khazarasul's employment, as it had shown that the dismissal was grounded in valid reasons. The court rejected the argument that Petronas or FPSO Ventures should have made accommodations for Khazarasul’s refusal to vaccinate.

In essence, the court viewed the company’s actions as a prudent move to avoid operational chaos, and it ruled that FPSO Ventures had met the legal criteria for dismissal under the Industrial Relations Act.

Refusing vaccination and other health requirements in Malaysian workplaces

In Malaysia, the refusal to comply with Covid-19 vaccination mandates has far-reaching implications for employment and legal standing.

The Industrial Court has previously upheld dismissals for similar refusals, such as a case involving Malaysia Airlines, where an employee was dismissed for insubordination due to non-compliance with the vaccine policy. Similarly, a High Court ruling supported the dismissal of an army sergeant who did not comply with a vaccination order.

These cases paint a clear picture: refusing to adhere to vaccination policies in certain industries, especially those with strict health and safety regulations, can be grounds for termination.

This case involving FPSO Ventures underlines the growing importance of adhering to health and safety policies in workplaces, particularly in high-risk industries like oil and gas, where even a small deviation can have catastrophic consequences.

The ruling also touches on a broader debate about individual rights versus collective health measures, especially during a pandemic. This balancing act between personal freedoms and public health is a tightrope that employers and employees alike must walk.

The court decision solidifies the notion that employers have the right to enforce policies that ensure the safety of their workforce, particularly in high-stakes environments. Refusal to comply with such policies, whether for medical, religious, or personal reasons, can lead to consequences as severe as termination.

This case could set a significant precedent for future disputes involving vaccine mandates, especially as the world continues to grapple with the Covid-19 pandemic and its ongoing impact on the workforce.