The rise of artificial intelligence in human resources promises unprecedented efficiency, from recruitment to performance management. However, as organizations in Malaysia and globally increasingly delegate critical decisions to algorithms, a profound question emerges: Can AI fairly terminate someone, especially when viewed through the lens of existing labor laws? The answer, for now, is a resounding and legally precarious “no,” highlighting a critical need to rethink HR tech’s role in the most sensitive aspects of employment.

The Illusion of Algorithmic Objectivity

Proponents of AI in termination decisions often champion its supposed objectivity, free from human biases. Yet, this “objectivity” is often an illusion. AI systems are trained on historical data, which inherently reflects past human biases – gender, racial, and age discrimination baked into years of hiring and firing decisions. When an algorithm recommends termination, it could simply be perpetuating these ingrained prejudices, making it a sophisticated tool for indirect discrimination. For instance, if past data shows a higher turnover rate for a particular demographic, an AI might unfairly flag individuals from that group as “high risk,” leading to biased outcomes.

Malaysian labor law, like many others, emphasizes principles of fairness, due process, and non-discrimination. The Industrial Relation Acts 1967 and esta blished industrial relations practices require employers to demonstrate “just cause or excuse” for dismissal. How can an employer reasonably defend an AI’s decision when the algorithm’s internal workings are often opaque, a “black box” even to its creators? The lack of transparency makes it incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to prove that an AI-driven termination was free from discriminatory elements or based on genuinely fair criteria.

The Legal Minefield of Explainability and Due Process

One of the biggest hurdles for AI in termination is the right to explainability. When an employee is dismissed, they have a right to understand why. If the reason is an AI’s complex calculation, can an HR manager truly explain the rationale, let alone defend it in an industrial court? The inability to articulate specific, human-understandable reasons for dismissal violates fundamental principles of due process. Employees deserve to know the specific deficiencies or performance issues that led to their termination, and to be given an opportunity to respond or improve. An algorithmic score simply doesn’t cut it.

Furthermore, the legal framework often requires human oversight and intervention in critical employment decisions. Delegating the final say to an algorithm diminishes the human element of compassion, context, and careful judgment that HR professionals are trained to provide. A human can consider mitigating circumstances; an algorithm, without specific programming, cannot.

Rethinking AI’s Role: A Supportive Tool, Not a Decider

This isn’t to say AI has no place in HR. It excels at identifying patterns, flagging potential risks, and automating administrative tasks. AI can be an invaluable supportive tool for HR professionals, providing data-driven insights to inform their decisions. For example, AI could highlight performance anomalies or retention risks, prompting HR to investigate further.

However, when it comes to the grave decision of employment termination, the final call must remain firmly with trained human HR professionals, armed with empathy, legal understanding, and the capacity for nuanced judgment. While AI can analyze data, it cannot yet grasp the complexities of human performance, the subtleties of workplace dynamics, or the spirit of fair labor practices. In the evolving landscape of HR tech, it’s imperative that innovation serves justice, not undermines it, ensuring that the human element remains paramount in decisions that profoundly impact livelihoods.