The Claimant failed to prove forced resignation due to lack of timely complaints and insufficient evidence of harassment or underpayment.

AWARD

Salahudin Hidayat Shariff:

Reference:

[1] This is a reference dated 4 April 2023 made by the Director General of Industrial Relations pursuant to subsection 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (Act 177) arising out of the dismissal of Sathiah Seelan a/l Rengasamy ("the Claimant") by Brooks Property and Facility Services Sdn Bhd ("the Company") on 25 August 2022.

Brief Facts

[2] The Company is a sole proprietorship in the business of property management providing comprehensive building and facility management services.

[3] The Claimant was appointed as a Building Manager with the Company on 18 August 2020 on probation. The Claimant was confirmed on 1 December 2020 via a letter dated 22 November 2020. In December 2021, the Claimant was given the post of Building plus Area Manager.

[4] There were issues between the Claimant and the Company, specifically on the part of the Claimant regarding his salary. The Claimant was contending that the Company was not paying his dues based on the Contract (of employment). It all ended when the Claimant submitted his two-month resignation notice on 22 August 2022. The letter made no mention of any issues between the Claimant and the Company.

[5] On 24 August 2022, the Company replied accepting the Claimant's resignation. However, on 11 October 2022, the Claimant wrote a letter entitled Dismissal from Employment. In this letter, the Claimant was contending that he was ordered out of the office on 25 August 2022 and that the Company was angry at the Claimant as well as for the Claimant seeking a salary increment. Further, the Claimant was contending that the Company was cheating the Claimant and their Client for alleged discrepancies in the payment of salary to employees and the placement of the said staff.

[6] The Claimant had also submitted a table with the alleged shortage of payment of salary. The Company has disagreed which this Court will discuss further in the Award.

[7] The details of the issue will be looked into in the Award and the Court has gone through all the above as well as the evidence given through testimony in Court and submissions that have been filed. Those documents and submissions are listed for ease of reference as follows:

(i) Statement of Case dated 28 May 2023;

(ii) Statement in Reply dated 14 June 2023;

(iii) Claimant's Rejoinder dated 16 August 2023;

(iv) Claimant's Bundle of Documents filed on 29 May 2023 marked as exhibit CLB-1;

(v) Claimant's Supplementary Bundle of Documents filed on 29 May 2023 marked as exhibit CLB-2;

(vi) Company's Bundle of Documents [Volume 1] filed on 19 April 2024 marked as exhibit COB-1;

(vii) Company's Bundle of Documents [Volume 2] marked on 28 May 2024 marked as exhibit COB-2;

(viii) Venuka a/p Govindaraju's Witness Statement signed on 28 May 2024 marked as exhibit CLWS-1;

(ix) Sathiah Seelan a/l Rengasamy's Witness Statement signed on 28 May 2024 marked as exhibit CLWS-2;

(x) Witness Statement of Muthaiya Jayaseelan signed on 28 May 2024 marked as exhibit COWS-1;

(xi) Claimant's Written Submissions and Bundle of Authorities dated 30 July 2024;

(xii) Company's Written Submission dated 19 July 2024;

(xiii) Company's Bundle of Authorities filed on 14 August 2024;

(xiv) Claimant's Submissions-In-Reply and Additional Bundle of Authorities dated 15 August 2024;

(xv) Claimant's Bundle of Authorities file