SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 MarsdenLR 199

INDUSTRIAL COURT KUALA LUMPUR
TEH SENG KAY – Appellant
Versus
UNITED COATINGS TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD – Respondent
Award No: 572 Of 2014 [Case No: 11/4-18/08]



Petitioner Advocates:LK Teh ,Respondent Advocate: LC Loh

A dismissal is considered just and fair when an employee's undisclosed involvement in a competing business leads to a conflict of interest, undermining the employer's trust.

Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Section 20(3) - Dismissal from service - Claimant was compelled to resign by the Company on 12 August 2006, citing conflict of interest due to his wife's involvement in a competing business. The Court found that the dismissal constituted a dismissal and not a voluntary resignation. (Paras 1, 13-19)

(B) Dismissal with Just Cause - The Claimant's involvement as a passive shareholder in a competing company does not negate evidence of conflict of interest and loss of trust. The court ruled dismissal was justified based on established business connections that compromised company interests. (Paras 15-18)

(C) The Claimant argued there was no misconduct; however, his undisclosed connections to a competitor led to distrust by the Company and accepted that dismissal was warranted. (Paras 5, 17)

(D) The Claimant's claim dismissed as he was dismissed with just cause and excuse.,

Result: Claim by the Claimant is hereby dismissed.

Table of Content
1. dismissal details and context. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. claimant's defense against dismissal. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
3. company's evidence and witness testimony. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. issues of dismissal versus resignation. (Para 12 , 13)

[1] This case is a reference by the Honourable Minister of Human Resources under s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 in relation to the dismissal of the Claimant by the Company from his service with the Company as Sales Manager on 12 August 2006.

[2] The Claimant was appointed as Sales Manager with the Company with effect from 1 October 2004 and was confirmed in his position on 1 April 2005. The Claimant was paid RM7,500.00 as basic salary with a fixed car allowance of RM1,000.00, sales allowance of RM500.00 and handphone allowance of RM120.00 per month.

[3] According to the Claimant's evidence, on 12 August 2006 he was called by COW-1 the Director of the Company and was questioned whether he has registered a new company. The Claimant informed COW-1 that his wife was in the process of registering a new company and COW-1 was displeased. COW-1 then took out a pre-prepared resignation letter and compelled the Claimant to resign immediately. The Claimant refused but COW-1 threatened that his outstanding salary, commission and allowances will be withheld. The Claimant was also told that regardless of whether he resign or not, the Claimant was barred from entering the Company's lab and factory and he will be dismissed. The Claimant then signed the letter of resignation. The Claimant also said he was not given a copy of the resignation letter

[4] The Claimant also said that it was his wife who registered a company by the name of Jamax Industries Sdn Bhd and it was registered on 7 August 2012, five days before Claimant was compelled to resign. Claimant said that he was not involved in the business of Jamax Industries. Jamax Industries has a similar business as the Company in this case. Two of his colleague CLW-2 and CLW-3 were also compelled to resign by the Company for their involvement in Jamax Industries. On 15 August 2006 the Company issued a notice to all its customers informing them that the Claimant is no longer authorized to transact business of the Company. On 18 June 2006 the Claimant was called by the Company's account clerk to collect his dues and he was paid RM5,714.70.

[5] The Claimant argued that the mere fact that a spouse of an employee is a director of a Company which has similar business objectives as the employer company, does not result in a conflict of interest between the employer and the employee. The mere fact that his wife is a director of Jamax does not undermine the business interest of the Company, according to the Claimant.

[6] The Claimant also argued that there was no misconduct on his part as he has always devoted his whole time and attention to the service for the Company. He was engaged to start a new division for the Company and he has succeeded in bringing a lot of customers for the Company's product. His achievement was recognised and acknowledged by the Company.

[7] In conclusion, the Claimant is saying that he was dismissed by the Company and the dismissal was without just cause and excuse.

[8] The Company through witness COW-1 the Managing Director did not deny making suggestion to the Claimant to resign but denied threatening and forcing him to resign. According to COW-1, he asked the Claimant about Jamax Industries Sdn Bhd registered under the name of the Claimant's wife and CLW-2. Claimant initially denied having knowledge or any connection with Jamax Industries until he was shown the company search for Jamax Industries.

[9] COW-1 further said that he informed the Claimant that there was a conflict of interest and he couldn't allow the boss of his competitor roam free in the Company premises. He suggested that the Claimant resign which the Claimant initially refused but after he gave his views, the Claimant agreed. COW-1 then arranged for the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top