An employer's managerial prerogative includes transferring employees without consent unless proven otherwise, especially under claims of constructive dismissal.

[1] This is an application to quash the Award of the Industrial Court No 1511 of 2017 [[2018] 1 MELR 167] dated 24 October 2017, which has allowed the 1st respondent's claim for constructive dismissal.

[2] The grounds of the application are as follows:

(i) the applicant, as the employer, had the right and managerial prerogative to transfer and re-designate the 1st respondent;

(ii) there was no requirement to obtain the consent of the 1st respondent before the applicant could exercise its right to re-designate the 1st respondent;

(iii) there was no bad faith or victimisation in re-designating the 1st respondent to the position of Head of Branch;

(iv) the transfer and re-designation was in line with the business needs and exigencies;

(v) the transfer and re-designation was part of the succession plan for the 1st respondent to take over the position of Head of Operations;

(vi) the terms and conditions of the 1st respondent's employment contract remained unchanged at all material times; and

(vii) the applicant had not breached the implied terms of trust and confidence relationship.

[3] Having considered the application and the submission of the parties, this Court has allowed the application with costs.

The Salient Facts

[4] The 1st respondent ("claimant") joined the applicant ("company") as the Head of Information Technology ("IT") with effect from 3 March 2008 and his job grade was Grade B2 (Deputy General Manager). His employment was subsequently confirmed on 3 September 2008 and the terms and conditions of his employment remained unchanged.

[5] The claimant was subsequently transferred/re-designated to different positions in various departments from 209 to 2012, as detailed below:

[6] On or about January 2013, the company had identified the claimant as a potential Head of Branch and decided to give the claimant the additional role of acting as a back-up (Relief) Head of Branch. As such, the claimant then underwent a one month training (Head of Branch Training Program) at the Klang Branch of the company from 25 March 2013 to 26 April 2013, to equip himself with the necessary knowledge and job skills required of a Head of Branch.

[7] On or about 28 March 2013, the Head of Branch of the Puchong Branch resigned and the Puchong Branch was left without a Head of Branch.

[8] By a letter dated 9 May 2013, the company informed the claimant that he would be re-designated to the position of Head of the Puchong Branch with effect from 13 May 2013. However, the terms and conditions of his employment remained unchanged at all material times.

[9] By a letter dated 10 May 2013, the claimant requested that the transfer order be revoked, failing of which he would deem himself as constructively dismissed.

[10] By a letter dated 16 May 2013, the company denied the claimant's allegation that the transfer was in breach of the employment contract and further advised the 1st respondent to perform his duties and responsibilities as the Head of Puchong Branch diligently.

[11] The claimant, however, deemed himself constructively dismissed by way of a letter dated 17 May 2013.

[12] The claimant then filed his representation under Industrial Relations Act 1967 , s 20 to the Industrial Relations Department and the representation was referred to the 2nd respondent for an adjudication.

[13] The 2nd respondent (the "Industrial Court") had allowed the claimant's claim through the Award dated 24 October 2017. Dissa