“I’m a grown man.”
“We are all adults.”
“There is no point filling in the form.”
These might sound like harmless complaints about workplace bureaucracy. In one recent Industrial Court case, however, they became evidence of deliberate insubordination.
In Llewellyn Chiou Chiat Ren v Sarawak Energy Berhad [Award No. 1681 of 2026], the Industrial Court upheld the dismissal of a senior employee who was absent for 39 working days and repeatedly refused to complete a mandatory Google attendance form distributed through WhatsApp.
The case raises a practical question for modern workplaces: can an instruction sent through a WhatsApp group be treated as a valid workplace order?
The short answer is yes, provided it is clear, lawful and reasonable.
What Happened in the Case?
The employee had worked for Sarawak Energy since April 2012. At the time of his dismissal, he held the position of Senior Executive II in the company’s Event Management and Protocol division.
His team frequently travelled throughout Sarawak for work. To monitor their whereabouts, the employee’s superior instructed the team to record their daily attendance using a Google Form.
The link was posted in the department’s WhatsApp group.
The employee faced two disciplinary charges:
- being absent from work without approval for 39 working days; and
- failing to complete the mandatory attendance form between 24 June and 7 October 2024.
A show cause letter was issued. After considering his written replies, the company conducted a domestic inquiry which found him guilty of both charges.
The company subsequently dismissed him.
Was the WhatsApp Instruction Valid?
The employee argued that he did not realise completing the attendance form was mandatory.
The evidence told a different story.
He had previously used the form and admitted that messages and reminders were posted in the WhatsApp group. Evidence from the domestic inquiry also showed that he had consciously chosen not to comply.
Among the explanations attributed to him were that:
- he was a “grown man”;
- the process was “dehumanising and humiliating”;
- the form did not make sense;
- everyone involved was an adult; and
- there was no point filling it in.
The Court found that the instruction was clear, mandatory and reasonably connected to the company’s need to monitor attendance.
His refusal was therefore not a simple oversight. It was deliberate disobedience.
Can Employers Issue Instructions Through WhatsApp?
Yes.
There is no general rule requiring every workplace instruction to be contained in a formal letter or email.
An instruction may be communicated verbally, through email, WhatsApp or another internal platform. What matters is whether:
- the instruction was clear;
- it came from someone with authority;
- it concerned the employee’s work;
- it was lawful and reasonable;
- the employee received and understood it; and
- the employee deliberately refused to comply.
The Industrial Court observed that workplace group chats are now commonly used by employers to communicate instructions.
An employee cannot necessarily avoid responsibility simply by saying that they did not read the messages particularly where WhatsApp was an established workplace channel and the instruction was repeatedly communicated.
That said, employers should still avoid conducting their entire HR department through a sea of disappearing WhatsApp messages.
Important instructions should be documented clearly, and employees should know which communication channels are treated as official.
What Amounts to Insubordination?
Insubordination generally involves the deliberate refusal to obey a lawful and reasonable instruction.
An employer seeking to establish insubordination should be able to prove:
- a lawful and reasonable instruction was given;
- the employee understood the instruction; and
- the employee wilfully disobeyed it.
The Federal Court has recognised that obedience to lawful workplace instructions is a fundamental implied duty within the employment relationship.
However, not every disagreement amounts to insubordination.
An employee may question an unclear instruction, raise a genuine safety concern or seek clarification. The important distinction is between respectfully challenging an instruction and deliberately refusing to comply.
In this case, the Court found that the employee’s comments and conduct challenged his superior’s authority and demonstrated that he did not intend to follow the attendance procedure.
Did the Employee’s Medical Condition Excuse His Absence?
The employee relied on medical conditions including spondylosis, scoliosis and degenerative disc disease. He said they caused severe back pain and affected his ability to stand and travel for prolonged periods.
Medical reports were produced during the proceedings.
However, the Court found insufficient evidence that he had:
- informed the company promptly why he could not attend work;
- produced medical certificates covering the relevant absences;
- formally requested permission to work from home beforehand; or
- applied for an appropriate workplace arrangement.
He only formally raised the request to work from home when answering the disciplinary allegations. The Court regarded this as an afterthought.
The lesson is not that an employee’s medical condition is unimportant.
Rather, a medical condition does not automatically authorise an employee to stay away from work indefinitely without informing the employer or obtaining approval.
When Does Absence Become Misconduct?
In this case, under section 14A(2) of the Sarawak Labour Ordinance, an employee may be deemed to have broken their contract if they are continuously absent for more than two consecutive working days without prior leave, unless the employee:
- has a reasonable excuse; and
- has informed or attempted to inform the employer at the earliest opportunity.
Section 15(2) of the Employment Act 1955 contains a substantially similar rule for employees in Peninsular Malaysia and Labuan. The provision appears in the official Employment Act 1955.
The Federal Court held in Pan Global Textiles Bhd Pulau Pinang v Ang Beng Teik [2002] 1 CLJ 181 that an employee cannot claim absence as a right without obtaining permission.
However, absence should not automatically be treated as abandonment or misconduct merely because it exceeds two days. The employer should still determine whether the employee had a reasonable explanation and whether they informed or attempted to inform the company.
Why Was Dismissal Upheld?
The dismissal was not upheld merely because the employee failed to fill in a Google Form once.
The Court considered the cumulative effect of his conduct:
- he was absent for 39 working days;
- the absences were not supported by medical certificates covering the relevant periods;
- he had not properly notified the company of his reasons;
- he repeatedly ignored the attendance instruction;
- he admitted consciously choosing not to complete the form;
- the company had issued reminders;
- he held a senior position; and
- the disciplinary committee considered his length of service, record and other mitigating factors.
The Court found that both absenteeism and insubordination had been proved and were sufficiently serious to justify dismissal.
His 13 years of service did not outweigh the gravity and persistence of the misconduct.
Does Every Failure to Clock In Justify Dismissal?
No.
A single failure to complete an attendance record would not ordinarily justify dismissal, particularly where it resulted from a genuine mistake, unclear instruction, technical problem etc.
Employers should distinguish between an employee who forgot to complete a form and one who deliberately rejects a reasonable attendance system over an extended period.
In any event, the punishment must remain proportionate to the misconduct proved.
Practical Lessons for Employers
Employers using WhatsApp or digital attendance systems should:
- state clearly that the platform is an official communication channel;
- explain that attendance recording is mandatory;
- maintain a written attendance policy;
- keep evidence of instructions and reminders;
- investigate whether any absence has a genuine medical explanation;
- request supporting medical documents where appropriate;
- consider requests for flexible working or reasonable workplace arrangements;
- issue precise disciplinary charges;
- allow the employee to respond; and
- consider proportionality before deciding on dismissal.
The disciplinary allegation should identify the specific dates of absence and the exact instruction allegedly disobeyed.
A vague accusation that an employee was “uncooperative” will be far harder to defend.
Practical Lessons for Employees
Employees dealing with health problems should communicate early and in writing.
Where a condition affects attendance or the ability to work from the office, the employee should:
- notify the employer promptly;
- submit the relevant medical certificates;
- explain how the condition affects their duties;
- formally request any necessary accommodation;
- continue following attendance procedures where possible; and
- retain records of communications with their superior or HR.
Silence creates an evidential gap. It becomes difficult to rely on a medical explanation months later if the employer was never told about it at the relevant time.
Final Thoughts
WhatsApp may feel informal, but a lawful and reasonable instruction does not lose its force simply because it arrives in a group chat.
At the same time, this case should not be reduced to the headline that an employee was dismissed for refusing to fill in a Google Form.
The dismissal was upheld because of a much wider pattern: 39 days of unexplained absence, repeated refusal to comply, contradictory explanations and evidence of deliberate insubordination.
For practical information covering workplace misconduct, disciplinary precedures and unfair dismissal, you can explore Employment Law Malaysia: The Complete Guide for Employees and Employers (2026).
This article provides general information and does not constitute legal advice. Industrial Court awards are fact-specific, and each matter should be assessed according to its evidence, employment terms and applicable legislation.
