LegalJuly 25, 2025

Malaysia’s approach to bully-proofing the workplace with employer duties and legal risks

By: Amardeep Singh ToorJihan Binti Azman

The article was first published in LHAG’s Employment Insights, Special Issue, 2025.

Workplace bullying remains a pervasive and complex challenge in Malaysia. Broadly, it refers to behaviour directed at an employee that poses a risk to health and safety or is intended to intimidate, degrade, humiliate, isolate, or undermine the target. Alarming figures from April 2024 show that 67% of Malaysian workers reported burnout, placing the nation among the highest globally for workplace stress.

Bullying can take many forms such as verbal abuse (insults, yelling, gossip), emotional manipulation (isolation, criticism, sabotage), cyberbullying (hostile messages, online shaming), and physical intimidation. Common tactics include assigning impossible deadlines, taking credit for others’ work, and spreading falsehoods.

Malaysian courts have acknowledged workplace bullying in several Industrial Court decisions:

  • Bina Goodyear Bhd v Subramaniam [2004] ILJU 55: Public humiliation by a supervisor.
  • Abbott Laboratories v Yeoh Siew Tin [2005] 1 ILR 43: Toxic remarks from a superior which led to mental distress.
  • Darmawatti Dahari v Malaysia Mining Corporation [2005] 1 ILR 93: Victimisation by the Human Resources department.
  • Amngran Govindasamy v Lifeline Innovators [2010] ILRU 0847: Forcibly removing and locking out an employee from the premises.

Table of contents


Introduction of new provisions under the Penal Code

The Penal Code introduces specific provisions to criminalise bullying in all forms, including online abuse. The law came into effect on 11 July 2025. Among the key additions:

  • Section 507B criminalises conduct that causes harassment, distress, fear, or alarm.
  • Section 507C covers similar behaviour where the victim is likely to feel harassed, distressed, fearful, or alarmed.
  • Section 507D makes it an offence to act in a way that causes another person to reasonably believe they will suffer harm.
  • Sections 507E and 507F relate to the publication or sharing of identity-related information:
    • 507E applies where such disclosure causes harassment, distress, fear, or alarm; and
    • 507F applies where the disclosure causes the victim to believe that harm will follow.
  • Section 507G defines key terms such as “harm,” “identity information,” and “related person” to ensure clarity and consistency in enforcing these offences.

Employer’s Duty to Ensure a Safe Workplace

Occupational Safety and Health Act 1994


Employers have both contractual and statutory duties to protect employees from harmful conduct, including bullying. Employers have an implied duty not to act in a way that destroys mutual trust and confidence and to provide a safe workplace. Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1994 (“OSHA 1994”), it is the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is practicable, the safety, health, and welfare of all employees (section 15, OSHA 1994). This includes psychological well- being.

The Department of Occupational Safety and Health (“DOSH”) Malaysia released the Guidelines on Psychosocial Risk Assessment and Management at the Workplace 2024 to provide employers with guidance on screening and assessing psychosocial risks as well as on actions to control and minimise these risks in the workplace.

Taking Disciplinary Action Against Perpetrators


Employers are also expected to take disciplinary action against perpetrators when bullying is proven:

  • Nik Hishamuddin Nik Mansor v Petroliam Nasional Berhad [2024] 4 ILR 35: The Industrial Court upheld a dismissal for persistent verbal abuse of a female colleague, including derogatory comments and name-calling.
  • Afnizahanim Mohammad Saad v Kemaman Bitumen Company Sdn Bhd [2019] 4 ILR 503: Dismissal was upheld for spreading malicious rumours and lying to the CEO.

Bullying occurring outside the workplace may also warrant disciplinary action:

  • Lee Ted Yong v Syarikat Sesco Bhd [2017] 1 ILJ 4: The Industrial Court upheld dismissal for abusive conduct during a company-sponsored dinner.
  • Prabakharan Balakrishnan v Entegris Malaysia Sdn Bhd [2022] 2 ILR 325: Dismissal was upheld for cyberstalking a subordinate and misusing her deceased mother’s image. The Industrial Court held that such behaviour, though online and outside working hours, constituted workplace harassment.

Where bullying cannot be definitively proven, employers must still take reasonable steps to protect alleged victims without unfairly penalising the accused. Solutions may include mutual separation, transfers, flexible work arrangements, or unpaid leave, provided such decisions meet legal standards of good faith, are not punitive, and do not result in financial detriment.

Flexible Work Arrangements as a Mitigation Tool


Flexible work arrangements are now increasingly accessible, with guidelines covering types of arrangements, eligibility, duration, and employer obligations, such as performance evaluation systems and workplace safety considerations.

Risks of Inaction

Constructive Dismissal and Negligence Claims


Employers risk liability for constructive dismissal or negligence if they fail to act on complaints. Inaction may amount to a breach of contract or duty of care if the employer knew or should have known about the misconduct.

In Melewar Corporation Bhd v Abu Osman [1994] 2 ILR 807, the employer’s inaction in response to sexual harassment was deemed a repudiation of the employment contract.

Vicarious Liability


Employers may be held vicariously liable for the misconduct of their employees.

  • Maslinda bt Ishak v Mohd Tahir bin Osman & Ors [2009] 6 CLJ 653: Various government agencies were held jointly liable for actions committed by a RELA officer in the course of employment.
  • Dee v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police (No 2) [2004] NSWADT 168: The employer’s failure to prevent repeated instances of unwanted physical contact by a colleague led to a finding of vicarious liability.
  • Waters v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2000] UKHL 50: The House of Lords held that an employer can be liable for failing to prevent harassment that causes psychiatric injury, provided it knew or ought to have known about the harassment.

Conclusion

The amendment to the Penal Code marks a significant step forward in Malaysia’s legal response to bullying, particularly in addressing emerging issues like cyberbullying. It complements the evolving duties of employers under common law and workplace safety legislation.

To build a safer and healthier workplace, employers should:

  • Implement a Clear Anti-Bullying Policy: Define bullying with specific examples, outline reporting mechanisms, and stipulate disciplinary consequences. The policy should apply to all staff and cover both on- and off-site conduct.
  • Conduct Training and Awareness Programs: Equip employees and management with the skills to identify, prevent, and respond to bullying.
  • Establish Confidential Reporting Channels: Provide secure and anonymous ways for employees to report incidents, such as hotlines or direct HR contacts.
  • Ensure Fair and Prompt Investigation: Appoint neutral investigators and maintain consistency and fairness in disciplinary procedures.
  • Support Victims: Offer counselling services and follow-up support to protect victims’ well-being.
  • Foster a Respectful Workplace Culture: Promote inclusivity, mutual respect, and open communication, while recognising positive behaviours.

By taking proactive and comprehensive steps, employers can not only reduce the risk of workplace bullying but also foster a healthier, more productive work environment.

Back To Top