Show Cause Letter: 7 Drafting Mistakes to Avoid

Most unfair dismissal claims in Malaysia are not lost at the domestic inquiry or at the Industrial Court. They are lost on page one, when a show cause letter is issued that cannot support the case built on it. 

Consider a familiar scenario. An employee is dismissed for "insubordination". The show cause letter that started the process said only: "Your attitude at the meeting last week was unacceptable." No date, no words spoken, no instruction refused, no rule cited. Months later, at the Industrial Relations Department or the Industrial Court, the employer is expected to prove misconduct as charged. But what exactly was charged?

A show cause letter is not a formality. It is often the first document an adjudicator reads, and it sets the boundaries of everything that follows. 

Why show cause letter matters

The purpose of a show cause letter is simple: to tell the employee what is alleged against them and to give a genuine opportunity to respond before any decision is made. It is, at its core, a natural-justice document.

That purpose sits within the framework most Malaysian employers already know:

• Employment Act 1955, section 14, which deals with dismissal for misconduct following due inquiry.

• Industrial Relations Act 1967, section 20, under which an employee who believes they were dismissed without just cause or excuse may seek reinstatement.

• The Code of Conduct for Industrial Harmony (1975), which sets out expected good practice in handling discipline and domestic inquiries.

A fair hearing starts with a specific charge. The High Court’s decision in Kansai Paint Asia Pacific Sdn Bhd v Lee Ee Chai (Civil Appeal No. WA-16A-25-02/2024) shows how much weight the charge carries. The employee was charged with taking company property without permission, a misconduct listed in the company’s handbook. The Industrial Court treated this as criminal theft and required the employer to prove elements it had never charged. The High Court held that this was an error: the question was whether the charge as drafted was proven. The employer is therefore held to the words it chooses. A charge that is specific and tied to a known rule gives the employee a clear case to meet and gives the employer a defensible case to prove.

Across these, one principle runs consistently: the employee must know the case they have to meet. A show cause letter that fails to say what the case is, undermines the process from the start, however sound the employer's suspicions may be.

The 7 Mistakes 

Mistake 1: Vague allegations instead of precise ones

What goes wrong: Labels and conclusions such as "poor attitude", "misconduct", "breach of trust" or "insubordination" replace facts. A weak allegation is such as “You displayed an unacceptable attitude towards your supervisor.”

Why it fails. The employee cannot respond meaningfully to a label. The employer, in turn, struggles later to prove a charge it never properly framed, and the allegation tends to drift between the show cause letter, the domestic inquiry and the termination letter.

Better improved version: "On 14 September 2026 at approximately 10.30am, in the second-floor meeting room, you stated to Mr X, in the presence of Ms Y and Mr Z, that you would not carry out the stock reconciliation he had instructed."

The fix. Facts, not adjectives. Ask yourself: could a stranger read this paragraph and know what allegedly happened?

Mistake 2: Missing or imprecise dates and times 

What goes wrong. The letter refers to "recently", "on several occasions" or "sometime last month".

Why it fails. The employee cannot check attendance records, rosters or emails, or recall where they were. Delay between an incident and the letter can also invite arguments about condonation or lost credibility in the investigation. Vague timing makes the employer look as though it does not know what happened. 

The fix. State the exact date and, where it matters, the approximate time. For repeated conduct, list each occasion separately rather than describing a pattern in general terms. Every allegation should be anchored to a date.

Mistake 3: No place or context

What goes wrong. The location, system, document or persons involved are left out.

Why it fails. Without context, the employee cannot identify the incident, locate witnesses, or request CCTV footage and records. It also opens the door to an argument that the wrong incident was investigated.

The fix. Identify:

• the location (site, department, vehicle, platform or WhatsApp group);

• the persons present or affected; and

• any relevant document, transaction or reference number.

In short: where, who was present, and which record.

Mistake 4: Conduct described as conclusion, not as acts

What goes wrong. The letter states what the employee is ("you were dishonest") rather than what the employee did.

Why it fails. Characterising conduct is the decision-maker's job, and it comes after hearing the employee's response. Doing it in the letter blurs the line between allegation and finding, and sounds as though the conclusion has already been reached.

The fix. Describe the act or omission in neutral terms, for example: "You submitted claim form no. 2231 for RM850 for a client lunch on 3 August, but the restaurant's records show no booking by you on that date." Let the classification of the misconduct (such as dishonesty or falsification) follow separately, once the facts have been tested.

Mistake 5: No rule, policy or contractual provision cited

What goes wrong. The letter alleges wrongdoing but never says which rule, term or instruction was breached.

Why it fails. An employer generally needs to show that the standard was known and applicable. Misconduct should be tied to a term of the contract, a handbook clause, a company policy or a lawful and reasonable instruction. Outdated handbooks or missing acknowledgements make matters worse.

The fix. Cite the clause number and title, attach the extract, and refer to proof that the employee knew of it, such as a signed acknowledgement, induction record or training attendance. In short: the rule, the clause, the date it was issued, and proof it was communicated.

Mistake 6: Unreasonable or unclear response time and mode

What goes wrong. The letter says "reply immediately" or "by 5pm today", or gives no deadline at all. It may not say how or to whom the employee should respond, or it may be served in a way the employer cannot later prove.

Why it fails. An opportunity to respond that is illusory is not an opportunity. Very short deadlines, no access to relevant documents, or issuing the letter while the employee is on leave or medical leave all feed an unfairness argument.

The fix. There is no single prescribed period, so set a sensible house standard and adjust it for the complexity of the allegation and the employee's circumstances. Then make sure the letter states:

• the deadline for the written response;

• the format and the person to whom it should be sent;

• how to request an extension; and

• how service was effected (acknowledgement of receipt, registered post, or email with proof).

Mistake 7: Prejudgment baked into the wording

What goes wrong. The letter says, "You are hereby found guilty...", or "the company has decided to terminate unless you can show otherwise". Sometimes a termination letter has already been drafted in advance, or the letter is issued by someone who has plainly decided the outcome.

Why it fails. It shows a closed mind and turns the process into a sham. Even where the underlying misconduct is real, prejudgment invites a finding that the dismissal was without just cause or excuse.

The fix. Use neutral, open language: "The company is considering whether...", and "This is an allegation; no decision has been made." Refer to possible outcomes only in general terms. Before issuing, read the letter as if you were the employee's lawyer and ask: does anything in here sound decided?

Drafting checklist (the takeaway)

Conclusion 

The show cause letter is the foundation of a disciplinary case. The domestic inquiry and the final decision can only be as sound as the charge they rest on. A letter that is specific, anchored to facts and a clear rule, fair in its timing, and neutral in its tone protects both the employee's right to be heard and the employer's ability to defend its decision later.