An employee walks into a management meeting with a camera hidden inside a pen.
He says he needs it to protect himself and collect evidence of workplace victimisation. His employer says it is a serious invasion of privacy.
Can the employee be dismissed under Malaysian employment law?
The Industrial Court considered this unusual question in Mohd Zharif bin Mohammed Hashim v Venus Assets Sdn Bhd, Award No. 881 of 2026.
What Happened in the Case?
The employee was a security officer assigned to the Four Seasons Hotel Kuala Lumpur. He had worked for the company for approximately six years.
In July 2024, the company received complaints that he had been carrying a camera disguised as a pen and using it to record conversations and take photographs without authorisation.
During a spot check, management found the spy pen inside his jacket. The employee admitted that it belonged to him and that he had used it to document what he considered inappropriate conduct.
The company’s investigation subsequently uncovered photographs and recordings involving employees and members of management.
What Were the Charges Against the Employee?
The company brought three charges against him.
First, he had shown the spy pen to a colleague and indicated that he intended to use it to record private conversations for reports to the company’s Ethics Hotline.
Second, he had taken photographs of security personnel whom he believed were sleeping on duty. He showed the photographs to another employee and made statements which caused his colleagues to feel threatened or intimidated.
Third, he secretly recorded a meeting involving the general manager and members of the People and Culture department without obtaining their consent.
The recording also captured employees and conversations before and after the meeting.
Why Did the Employee Make the Recordings?
The employee claimed that he had been bullied, humiliated and victimised by his superior.
According to him, his earlier complaints had not been properly addressed. He therefore obtained the spy pen to protect himself and collect evidence supporting his allegations.
He also argued that photographs were necessary to prove that other security personnel had been sleeping while on duty.
However, the Court found that none of the material obtained through the spy pen showed the alleged victimisation.
The recordings went considerably beyond documenting a particular incident involving his superior. They captured management meetings, colleagues and other workplace conversations without consent.
Why Did the Industrial Court Uphold the Dismissal?
The Court found all three charges proved on the balance of probabilities.
Several factors were significant.
1. The recordings were not limited to self-protection
The employee had photographed colleagues and recorded workplace conversations unrelated to any proven victimisation.
The Court therefore rejected his argument that the device was used solely to protect himself.
2. His conduct intimidated other employees
The employee indicated that photographs of personnel sleeping on duty could be submitted to the company’s Ethics Hotline.
Although he characterised his statements as jokes, his colleagues did not regard them that way. The Court accepted that his actions caused them to feel threatened and harassed.
3. He breached company policies
The employee’s conduct breached the company’s policies concerning:
- privacy and confidentiality;
- workplace safety;
- unauthorised personal electronic devices; and
- the collection and use of private information.
He admitted that he had neither declared the device nor obtained permission to use it.
4. Guest privacy was particularly important
The Court placed considerable emphasis on the fact that the employee worked as a security officer in a hotel.
His responsibilities included protecting the safety and privacy of guests and employees. A concealed camera created the risk of private moments or conversations being recorded, whether intentionally or accidentally.
The Court considered this incompatible with the trust placed in the hotel and its security personnel.
Is Every Secret Recording Workplace Misconduct?
Not necessarily.
The award does not establish that every employee who secretly records a workplace conversation may automatically be dismissed.
The Court’s decision depended on the combined circumstances:
- a concealed camera was used;
- several employees were photographed or recorded;
- colleagues felt intimidated;
- management meetings were recorded without consent;
- company policies were breached;
- the employee occupied a security position;
- hotel guests could potentially have been recorded; and
- the evidence did not support the employee’s explanation of victimisation.
A limited recording made to preserve evidence of serious harassment may present a different factual situation.
Can the Recording Still Be Used as Evidence?
Potentially.
Whether a recording may be considered as evidence is separate from whether making it constituted misconduct.
A secretly obtained recording may contain relevant evidence. However, its possible evidential value does not necessarily excuse a breach of confidentiality, privacy or workplace policy.
The person relying on it should preserve the original recording and be able to establish its authenticity, context and completeness.
What If the Recording Reveals Harassment or Wrongdoing?
The employer should investigate the underlying allegation separately.
There may be two distinct issues:
- whether the employee committed misconduct by making the recording; and
- whether the recording reveals misconduct by another person.
An employer should not disregard credible evidence of harassment, corruption, threats or safety violations merely because the evidence was obtained without permission.
Equally, an employee cannot assume that an allegation of wrongdoing gives them unrestricted permission to conduct workplace surveillance.
Practical Lessons for Employers
Employers should introduce a clear policy covering:
- recording workplace meetings;
- concealed cameras and audio recorders;
- employee and customer privacy;
- authorised electronic devices;
- confidential information;
- reporting suspected misconduct; and
- the consequences of unauthorised recordings.
Upon discovering a recording, the employer should investigate its scope, purpose and contents before deciding on disciplinary action.
Practical Lessons for Employees
Employees who need to document workplace mistreatment should consider safer alternatives:
- make a written complaint;
- take contemporaneous notes;
- send an email confirming what was said;
- request written instructions;
- ask for permission to record;
- use the employer’s grievance or whistleblowing procedure; and
- obtain advice before using a concealed device.
Secretly recording colleagues may create a separate misconduct issue, even where the employee believes they have a legitimate complaint.
Final Thoughts
Mohd Zharif does not establish a blanket rule that every secret workplace recording justifies dismissal.
The dismissal was upheld because the employee’s actions extended beyond recording one meeting for self-protection. He photographed and recorded colleagues, caused them to feel intimidated, breached several workplace policies and created a serious risk to privacy within a hotel.
The central lesson is that the employee’s purpose matters but so do the method, extent and consequences of the recording.
This article provides general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case depends on its particular facts, evidence, employment documents and workplace policies.
