Back
2023 MarsdenLR 2258
INDUSTRIAL COURT PENANG
TAN CHIN LIN – Appellant
Versus
SEAGATE GLOBAL BUSINESS SERVICES (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD – Respondent
Award No: 2260 Of 2023 [Case No: 9/4-1140/21]
The court ruled that voluntary resignation through a VSS negates claims of unfair dismissal, establishing that the burden of proof lies with the claimant to demonstrate dismissal.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Section 20 - Complaint regarding dismissal - Claimant contended that his resignation was coerced due to misleading information about job elimination, while the Company asserted voluntary participation in a Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS) - Court found no evidence of coercion, confirming that the claimant voluntarily ended his employment. (Paras 1-38)
(B) Burden of Proof - The burden lies with the claimant to establish dismissal; if disputed, the employer has no obligation to prove just cause. (Paras 12-16)
(C) Standard of Proof - Claimant must prove his case on the balance of probabilities. (Paras 16)
(D) Principle of Last In First Out (LIFO) - Not applicable as the claimant was the only employee in his category and had voluntarily left. (Paras 33) (E) Jurisdiction - Court lacks jurisdiction to decide on claims for AWS, Variable Pay, and Stock Options. (Paras 34)
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the claimant had failed to prove dismissal and voluntarily resigned through the VSS.
Result: Claimant's case dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's jurisdiction to determine dismissal (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. claimant's coercion and misrepresentation claims (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. company's defense against unfair dismissal (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. burden of proof in dismissal cases (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. evaluation of evidence regarding vss (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. existence of vitiating factors in vss agreement (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 7. sanctity of the vss agreement (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 8. principle of lifo does not apply (Para 33) |
| 9. court's jurisdiction on claimant's other claims (Para 34) |
| 10. conclusion on claimant's dismissal (Para 35 , 36 , 37) |
[1] The reference from The Honourable Minister of Human Resources, Malaysia (hereinafter referred to as "the Minister") pursuant to s 20 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (hereinafter referred to as "the IRA") in this case requires this Court to hear and determine the complaint made by Tan Chin Lin (hereinafter referred to as "the Claimant") regarding his dismissal by Seagate Global Business Services (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd (hereinafter referred to as "the Company") effective 22 January 2020.
[2] This Court has considered the following cause papers and documents in handing down this Award, namely:
(a) the Claimant's Statement of Case dated 6 August 2021;
(b) the Company's Statement In Reply dated 30 September 2021;
(c) the Claimant's Rejoinder dated 2 November 2021;
(d) the Claimant's witness statement (Tan Chin Lin) marked as "CLWS-1";
(e) the Company's Witness Statement (Zaiton binti Elias) marked as "COWS-1";
(f) the Company's Witness Statement (Nadiah binti Azizan) marked as "COWS-2";
(g) the Company's Witness Statement (Julie Paige Odom) marked as "COWS-3";
(h) the Claimant's Bundle of Documents marked as "CLB-1";
(i) the Claimant's Supplementary Bundle of Documents marked as "CLB-2";
(j) the Company's Bundle of Documents marked as "COB-1"; and
(k) the Company's Bundle of Documents (Vol 2) marked as "COB-2".
Brief Facts Of The Case
[3] The Company is part of Seagate Group of Companies ("hereinafter referred to as "Seagate Group") which has subsidiaries around the world. It was incorporated in 2016 as a Shared Resource Centre (SRC) with the purpose of operating as a key hub for the Seagate Group by providing, amongst others, development and support of global IT operations systems and services and human resource support to the APAC region.
[4] The Claimant commenced his employment with Penang Seagate Industries (M) Sdn Bhd (hereinafter referred to as "Penang Seagate") on 4 December 2008 as an Information Technology Director (Grade 160) in IT Asia Design Centre Department with a monthly salary of RM16,000.00. SRC was initially set up in 2009 Penang Seagate. In 2017, Penang Seagate ceased its operations, and the Claimant was transferred from Penang Seagate to the Company with effect from 23 June 2017 without any loss of existing benefits, privilege and seniority.
[5] By way of a letter dated 8 July 2019, the Claimant applied to participate in the Company's Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS) (hereinafter referred to as "the VSS Application"). The Company thereafter accepted the VSS Application vide its letter dated 9 July 2019 wherein the Claimant was informed that his last date of employment would be on 22 January 2020 (hereinafter referred to as "the VSS Agreement").
[6] As part of the VSS, the Claimant was paid a total sum of RM423,697.35 by the Company which consists of the following payments:
The Claimant's Case
[7] In his Statement of Case, the Claimant states that:
(a) the Claimant had commenced his employment with Penang Seagate with a starting salary of RM16,000.00 per month, Annual Wage Supplement (AWS), Variable Pay and Stock Options of 1,500 units and 500 Restricted Stock Units (RSU);
(b) the Claimant had been coerced, misled and lied to that his job and position was eliminated and that if he did not apply for the VSS he would be retrenched within two weeks as oppo
