Daily Express Subscriber
Sign in to your account.

IT BEGAN with a seemingly innocuous question over breakfast. "Amoi, makan hot dog ya?" ("Young girl, eating a hot dog, right?"). On the surface, it was a query about a grilled sausage. 

But at the Industrial Court that sausage became the centrepiece of a legal battle. Sexual harassment at work is an insidious malaise, often masked by the cowardice of "just joking", the facade of "friendly gestures," or the linguistic gymnastics of "terms of endearment.” 

The message is unequivocal: employers have an overarching duty to provide a safe haven for their employee, a duty that overrides the seniority, tenure, or past performance of any "cheeky" employee.

Consider this week’s discourse merely an “amuse-bouche to whet your appetite”; rest assured there will be more on this critical subject.

The Unwanted Hotdog

The case of Camillius Casimir v. Genting Malaysia Berhad (Award No. 1615 of 2025) serves as a potent opener to this discourse. 

The protagonist, a security guard entrusted with the safety of the company’s premises and people, found himself dismissed after uttering the aforementioned “hotdog” remark to a female employee.

His defence was predictable. He claimed he was merely inquiring innocently whether she was consuming the grilled sausage served at the breakfast area that day. 

Hence, the argument was nothing sinister in a sausage. But the Industrial Court in its wisdom saw through the culinary defence. 

The female employee testified to feeling disgusted and uncomfortable, noting that the remark was not delivered with culinary curiosity but with a "lewd facial expression".

Crucially, the guard’s own admission during the investigation sealed his fate. He confessed, “I tried to talk to her because I was interested in her". 

This admission shattered the context of an innocent breakfast chat. The Court ruled that the "hotdog" remark, in that specific context carried sexual overtones referring to male genitalia.

Although Camillius was formally charged only with the "hotdog" incident, the Court allowed evidence of a broader pattern of behaviour to demonstrate his state of mind. 

It emerged that he was a serial pest who preyed on multiple female employees in the past. 

This case establishes a critical precedent: verbal innuendo, even when veiled as casual conversation, constitutes sexual harassment. 

The Court emphasised that a security guard of all people, destroys the trust and confidence reposed in him when he becomes the source of insecurity for female staff.

Terms of endearment 

If the Genting case dealt with culinary double entendres, the case of Magendran Gunasekharan v. Mattel (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd (Award No. 24 of 2024) serves as a masterclass in dismantling of the "affectionate supervisor" archetype. 

This case is particularly instructive because it dissects the full spectrum of harassment from physical groping to the verbal harassments and exposes the desperate, often absurd defences employed by perpetrators when cornered.

Magendran was a Production Manager, a position of significant authority. His victim was a subordinate working on the factory floor. 

The harassment was not an isolated outburst but a campaign of boundary violations, Magendran was accused of groping subordinate back without her consent. 

But the harassment extended far beyond the physical realm with late-night video calls and messages that blurred professional lines.

The most striking aspect of the Mattel case was Magendran’s use of "terms of endearment" to assert dominance. The evidence showed he had saved subordinate’s contact in his phone as "Kanne - Mattel". 

In Tamil, "Kanne" is a term of deep affection, translating to "Dear," "Darling," or "Pampered”. When confronted with this in court, Magendran attempted a defence that can only be described as linguistic gaslighting. 

He argued that he simply meant "Eye"—the literal translation of the word attempting to strip it of its romantic connotation. 

The Court was not hoodwinked. It cited precedent establishing that terms like "Sayang" and "Kanne" generally indicate intimacy beyond friendship, especially when used by a male superior towards a female subordinate.

Further compounding this was his request that subordinate address him as "Mama". 

While literally meaning "Uncle," the term is colloquially used between lovers to mean "Honey" or "Husband". 

To ask a subordinate to use such a term is a gross abuse of the managerial position, creating a forced intimacy that is the hallmark of grooming behaviour. 

The Court rightly dismissed this explanation as unreasonable.

The Court also considered a pattern of behaviour that pointed to Magendran’s guilt. It emerged that the subordinate was not his first victim. 

Another employee, an Indonesian national had previously experienced similar harassment. Although this prior incident had been handled internally. 

The Industrial Court upheld Magendran’s dismissal ruling that his actions constituted a serious misconduct. The decision reinforced that "terms of endearment" have no place in a professional hierarchy. 

When a manager asks a subordinate to call him "Hubby" or saves her number as "Darling," it is not affection; it is an assertion of dominance and sexual interest that constitutes harassment.

“Pisy Pia”: Pussy cat, come here!

In Harry Wong Wei Chen v. Petroliam Nasional Berhad (PETRONAS) (Award No. 340 of 2021), Wong, a Project Manager stationed in Tehran, Iran, led a small team that included a female subordinate. 

The charges against him were a litany of indignities. 

He lifted the complainant's skirt with his foot until her calf was visible. He told her, "Nini, sexynya hari ni..." ("Nini, you look sexy today") while staring at her chest. 

He rubbed his body against her backside in a cramped kitchen and uttered the ambiguous phrase "Pishy Pia," which the company contended meant "Pussy cat, come here" in Persian.

Wong’s defence was a classic deflective manoeuvre: he claimed the events never happened or were jokes taken out of context. 

Regarding an incident where he showed her his middle finger and shouted an obscenity, he admitted the words "Fuck you" constituted workplace harassment but claimed they were used in a "different context".

The Court noted that Wong’s evidence was "riddled with inconsistencies" and his demeanour was evasive. Crucially, the Court addressed the victim's silence. 

Wong’s counsel argued that the complainant continued to appear in photos with him, suggesting acquiescence. 

The Court disagreed, holding that in sexual harassment cases, silence or passivity does not mean consent. "She neither accepts nor rejects the advances; she simply endures them," the Court stated. 

In the claustrophobic environment of a project team in Iran, the victim endured the harassment to survive. 

The Court ruled that Wong, having "made his bed, now had to lie in it".

The Costly Gift 

In David Chew Yu Lin v. BFM Media Sdn. Bhd. (Award No. 470 of 2024), Chew, a Producer, was dismissed following allegations from an intern and another employee. 

Chew was accused of taking the intern for lunch and purchasing an iPad for her, insisting she accept it despite her refusals. 

Later, in his car, he placed his hand on her lap without consent. 

With another employee, he was accused of leaning over and kissing her while she fastened her seatbelt.

Chew’s defence relied on bare denials. He claimed he bought the iPad because the intern said she "would love to have one," framing it as benevolence. 

He argued his gestures were "misconstrued" and acceptable in the company's culture. 

The Court however found his explanations "illogical". 

Conclusion

For employees, the lesson is one of boundaries. Touching a colleague’s lap, calling them terms of endearment or making suggestive remarks about sausages are not grey area but are grounds for dismissal for Sexual Harassment. 

For employers, the mandate is to act. The Mattel and Petronas awards remind us that employers must be firm regardless whether the perpetrators are senior employees.