Workplace Misconduct in the Digital Era

In this era of widespread social media usage, the boundary between an employee's personal online activities and an employer's legitimate business interests remains a grey area that frequently gives rise to disputes between employers and employees. Employers are increasingly faced with situations where employees express frustrations online, raising questions about whether such conduct justifies disciplinary action.

The AirAsia Decision: Private Posts and Proportionate Discipline

The recent Industrial Court decision in Hyffny Bin Yusof v AirAsia Berhad (Award No. 1676 of 2025) provides important guidance on the extent to which employers may regulate employees' social media activities and the factors that must be considered before imposing dismissal.

Brief Facts

The claimant was employed as a cabin crew member with AirAsia Berhad since 2017. In December 2022, he posted comments on his personal Facebook and Instagram accounts after experiencing frustration arising from a prolonged flight delay.

The company viewed the posts as inappropriate and in breach of its social media policies. Following an investigation and a Notice to Explain, the claimant was dismissed on 2 February 2023 for alleged serious misconduct.

The claimant challenged the dismissal, arguing that:

• The posts were made on his personal social media accounts.

• The posts were visible only to his friends and not to the public.

• The comments were made outside working hours.

• There was no intention to damage the company's reputation.

The Industrial Court's Findings

The Industrial Court found that the company failed to establish that the claimant's conduct amounted to serious misconduct warranting dismissal.

Several factors influenced the Court's decision:

1. The Posts Were Made in a Private Setting

   The Court accepted that the posts were made on restricted social media accounts and were not publicly disseminated. There was insufficient evidence to show that the posts were accessible to the wider public.
   

2. No Actual Reputational Damage Was Proven Although the company argued that its reputation had been harmed, no evidence was produced to show complaints from customers, regulators, or members of the public. The Court held that reputational damage cannot be presumed and must be proven.
   

3. The Comments Were Expressions of Frustration The claimant admitted making the posts but explained that they were written after a lengthy flight delay and while he was experiencing fatigue and frustration. The Court viewed the comments as an emotional outburst rather than a deliberate act intended to undermine the employer.
   

4. Dismissal Was Disproportionate Even if the claimant's remarks were inappropriate, the Court found that dismissal was an excessive punishment. The Court emphasised that disciplinary action must be proportionate to the misconduct committed.
   

Decision

The Industrial Court held that the dismissal was without just cause or excuse.

Although the Court found that the claimant had exercised poor judgment by using inappropriate language, it concluded that the conduct did not justify termination of employment.

Instead of reinstatement, the Court awarded compensation and back wages, subject to deductions for contributory misconduct and post-dismissal earnings.

The Telekom Malaysia Decision: When Social Media Conduct Crosses the Line

The Industrial Court has also recognised that social media misconduct may justify dismissal where the employee's conduct seriously undermines the employer's interests.

In Muhammad Haniff Azzahari v Telekom Malaysia Berhad [2017] 4 ILR 37, the Court upheld the employee's dismissal after finding that his social media conduct amounted to grave misconduct.

Brief Facts

The claimant was employed as a Technician with Telekom Malaysia Berhad.

Approximately one year and nine months into his employment, he was issued a show cause letter for, among others, uploading the company's Letter of Censure on his Facebook page and posting his personal opinions regarding the letter.

Following a domestic inquiry, the claimant was found guilty of the charges preferred against him and was

subsequently dismissed from employment.

The Industrial Court's Findings

The Industrial Court found that the company had successfully established the misconduct against the claimant.

Several factors influenced the Court's decision:

1. Disclosure of Company Documents The Court noted that the uploaded Letter of Censure contained the company's logo and constituted an internal company document. By publishing the letter on social media, the claimant had improperly disclosed information relating to the company.
   

2. Offensive and Defamatory Remarks Against a Superior The Court further found that the claimant's Facebook posting contained insulting comments, offensive remarks and defamatory statements directed at his superior, who had issued the Letter of Censure.
   

   Such conduct was viewed as a serious breach of workplace discipline and respect towards management.
   

3. Breach of Trust and Confidence The Court held that the claimant's actions were inconsistent with the due and faithful discharge of his duties as an employee. By publicly criticising and attacking his superior through social media, the claimant had acted in a manner incompatible with the trust and confidence essential to the employment relationship.
   

Decision

The Industrial Court held that the claimant's dismissal was with just cause and excuse.

The Court concluded that the claimant's conduct amounted to grave misconduct and justified the employer's decision to terminate his employment.

Key Takeaways for Employers

1. Social Media Policies Must Be Clear and Reasonable Employers should ensure employees understand what online conduct is prohibited and the potential consequences of breaching company policies.
   

2. Evidence of Harm Matters Where reputational damage or business disruption is relied upon as justification for disciplinary action, employers should be prepared to produce evidence supporting such allegations. Assertions of harm without supporting evidence may not be sufficient.
   

3. Context Should Always Be Considered HR should assess the surrounding circumstances, including whether the post was public or private, whether it was made during working hours, whether confidential information was disclosed, and whether the employee acted maliciously or merely out of frustration.
   

4. Apply the Principle of Proportionality Dismissal should generally be reserved for serious misconduct that fundamentally damages the employment relationship. Lesser misconduct may justify warnings, counselling, or other corrective measures instead.

Conclusion

The two cases illustrate that social media misconduct must be assessed on its own facts. While not every inappropriate online comment will justify dismissal, employees who disclose company information, publish defamatory remarks, or seriously undermine the employer's interests may face termination where the misconduct fundamentally damages the relationship of trust and confidence.

Reference: Hyffny Bin Yusof v AirAsia Berhad (Award No. 1676 of 2025) Muhammad Haniff Azzahari v Telekom Malaysia Berhad [2017] 4 ILR 37