Medical certificates (MCs) play a vital role in workplace administration. They assure employers that an employee is genuinely unfit to work, while also protecting the employee’s right to rest and recover. But what happens when the system is abused?

Consider this scenario: during an investigation into a falsified MC, the employee admitted the certificate was not genuine. He explained, however, that he felt forced to do it because his company had rejected his request for annual leave. His reasoning was simple: he needed the time off, the company said no, so he had no choice but to “create” a medical excuse.

The question is: can this be accepted as a justification under Malaysian labour law?

The Legal Framework

1. Annual Leave Entitlement under the Employment Act 1955 (Act 265)
Under Section 60E, every employee is entitled to paid annual leave after 12 months of service:

• 8 days for 1–2 years of service,
• 12 days for 2–5 years,
• 16 days for more than 5 years.

Annual leave is a statutory right. Employers cannot deny it outright, though they may schedule or defer it according to operational needs. Section 7 of the Act also makes it clear that contracts cannot remove or reduce statutory benefits.

2. Sick Leave under the Act
Sick leave, governed by Section 60F, is separate from annual leave. It requires certification by a registered medical practitioner. Any absence without such certification does not qualify as sick leave. Submitting a falsified MC therefore amounts to misconduct, because it misrepresents the reason for absence.

3. Misconduct and Termination
The Act allows employers to dismiss an employee without notice under Section 14, provided there is just cause and excuse, and after a proper domestic inquiry. Submitting a false MC, even with “reasons,” is generally recognised as serious misconduct because it undermines honesty and trust.

4. Industrial Relations Act 1967
If dismissed, an employee may challenge the dismissal under Section 20 as “without just cause or excuse.” The Industrial Court would then consider whether the falsification, combined with the explanation, justifies termination.

Is the Explanation Acceptable?

On the surface, the employee’s reasoning—that he was forced to falsify an MC because annual leave was denied—may appear sympathetic. Many employees struggle when personal needs clash with company operations. However, from a legal and HR perspective, the explanation is not a valid justification.

1. Two Wrongs Do Not Make a Right
Even if the company unfairly rejected annual leave, this does not entitle the employee to falsify medical documents. The correct response would be to appeal through HR, file a grievance, or escalate to the Labour Department if rights were denied. Creating a false MC is still dishonesty.

2. Breach of Trust
Employment relationships rest heavily on mutual trust. Once an employee is caught falsifying documents, the employer may reasonably conclude that trust has been broken. The Industrial Court has consistently upheld dismissals in such cases, even when employees argued extenuating circumstances.

3. Misuse of Sick Leave System
Sick leave exists to protect health, not to replace annual leave. Using MCs as a backdoor method to secure time off damages the integrity of workplace policies and disadvantages colleagues who genuinely fall ill.

But What About the Company’s Conduct?

While the employee’s falsification is misconduct, the company is not entirely free from scrutiny. If evidence shows that the company has a pattern of unreasonably rejecting annual leave, the Industrial Court may take a balanced view:

• Fairness of the Employer’s Actions: Employers must act reasonably when approving leave. While they may defer leave due to urgent business needs, outright denial without valid reasons may be seen as unfair labour practice.
• Contributory Factor: Courts sometimes recognise that employer behaviour contributed to the misconduct, though this rarely excuses dishonesty. At most, it might influence the penalty—e.g., leading to suspension or demotion instead of dismissal.

Thus, while falsifying an MC is still unacceptable, a company that consistently mishandles leave applications may be criticised for poor HR practice.

Lessons for Employees

1. Do Not Falsify Medical Documents
   No matter how desperate the situation, falsifying an MC is misconduct. Once proven, it can justify dismissal. The risks far outweigh any short-term gain.
2. Use Proper Channels
   If annual leave is unfairly denied, employees can:
   • Appeal internally to HR or higher management.
   • Escalate the matter to the Labour Department (JTK), which enforces compliance with the Employment Act.
3. Understand the Distinction
   Annual leave and sick leave serve different purposes. Using one to replace the other through deception damages credibility.

Lessons for Employers

1. Respect Annual Leave Rights
   Annual leave is not a gift; it is a statutory entitlement. Employers may regulate when it is taken but cannot deny it without valid reasons. Transparent leave policies prevent frustration and misconduct.
2. Address Misconduct Fairly
   If an employee is suspected of falsifying an MC, employers must conduct a domestic inquiry before dismissal. Skipping due process may result in the dismissal being overturned at the Industrial Court.
3. Examine Root Causes
   If employees resort to cheating for time off, it may reflect deeper issues: inflexible scheduling, lack of communication, or overwork. Addressing these may prevent recurrence.

Conclusion

So, is it acceptable for an employee to falsify an MC because annual leave was rejected? The answer is no. While rejection of annual leave may be unfair, it does not justify dishonesty. Falsifying an MC remains serious misconduct that can lead to dismissal.

However, the story does not end there. Employers who mishandle leave entitlements also act unlawfully. A fair balance must be struck: employees should assert their rights through legal and professional channels, while employers must administer leave with fairness and flexibility.

The lesson is clear: honesty and fairness are the twin pillars of workplace harmony. Employees must not break trust through falsification, and employers must not break trust by denying lawful entitlements. When both sides uphold these principles, disputes over leave can be resolved without deception and without conflict.