Constructive dismissal occurs when an employer's actions fundamentally breach the employment contract, leading the employee to reasonably consider themselves dismissed. The transfer must not disadvantage the employee, and any delay in responding to changes may imply acceptance.

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal by CIMB Bank Berhad ("the Bank"). The 1st respondent is Ahmad Suhairi Mat Ali. He was the Claimant in the Industrial Court. For convenience, we shall refer to the Appellant as "the Bank", and the 1st respondent as "the Claimant". This is a case of "constructive dismissal". The Claimant's claim was dismissed by the Industrial Court. The High Court allowed Judicial Review and quashed the Award of the Industrial Court and granted the relief of compensation. We have dealt with the law on constructive dismissal in some detail before analysing the facts and the legal issues relevant to the claim. The detailed background facts are found at para 34 onwards of this judgment. This Court's analysis, decision and the reasons for the same are at para 74 onwards.

[2] The Claimant was at all material times an employee of the Bank. This case emanated from a complaint by the Claimant pursuant to s 20 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 ("the Act") that he had been "constructively dismissed" by the Bank. The complaint of constructive dismissal was precipitated by the Bank's transfer and re-designation order per their letter dated 8 May 2012. In the context of the complaint that was presented to the Industrial Court, the question was whether the Claimant had established that the Bank had breached an implied term of the contract of employment that they would not make such substantial changes in the duties and status of Claimant as to constitute a fundamental breach of contract.

[3] The Industrial Court was duty bound to examine the evidence, both oral and written, and determine whether in all the circumstances, the responsibilities and duties of the Claimant had been so altered by the Bank as to constitute a breach of a fundamental (implied) term of the contract of employment. The claim for dismissal without just cause or excuse was dismissed by the Industrial Court per Award No 1618 of 2019 dated 29 May 2019 ("the Award"). The Award is reported as Ahmad Suhairi Mat Ali v. CIMB Bank Berhad [2019] MELRU 1618 (IC).

[4] The Claimant then applied to the High Court for Judicial Review to quash the Award. He maintained that the Award was liable to be quashed as there were errors of law in the decision of the Industrial Court to dismiss the claim. The Claimant contended that the Industrial Court committed errors of law of the type as explained and enunciated by the Court of Appeal in Syarikat Kenderaan Melayu Kelantan Bhd v. Transport Workers Union 1995 MarsdenLR 10 ; ; [1995] 2 CLJ 748; [1995] 2 AMR 1601. The relevant passage where the Court of Appeal discussed the concept of error of law is at p 342 of the MLJ report which reads as follows:

An inferior tribunal or other decision-making authority, whether exercising a quasi-judicial function or purely an administrative function has no jurisdiction to commit an error of law. Henceforth, it is no longer of concern whether the error of law is jurisdictional or not. If an inferior tribunal or other public decision maker does make such an error, then he exceeds his jurisdiction. So too, is jurisdiction exceeded where resort is had to an unfair procedure (see Raja Abdul Malek v. Setiausaha Suruhanjaya Pasukan Polis [1995] 1 MLRA 57; [1995] 1 MLJ 308; [1995] 1 CLJ 619; [1995] 1 AMR 855), or where the decision reached is unreasonable, in the s