The court ruled that the claimant failed to prove constructive dismissal due to lack of evidence of fundamental breaches by the employer, thereby dismissing the claim.

AWARD

Augustine Anthony:

Reference:

[1] This is a reference dated 10 January 2023 by the Honourable Minister of Human Resources pursuant to s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 ("The Act") arising out of the alleged dismissal of Sui Ng Ching @ Ng Ching (Claimant) by House Lightings Sdn Bhd (Company) on the 26 October 2020.

[2] Pursuant to the directions of this Court , the parties in this matter filed their respective submissions dated 15 July 2024 (Claimant's written submissions), 16 July 2024 (Company's written submissions), 29 July 2024 (Claimant's written submissions in reply) and 30 July 2024 (Company's written submissions in reply).

[3] This Court considered all the notes of proceedings in this matter, documents and cause papers in handing down this Award namely:

(i) The Claimant's Statement of Case dated 13 June 2023;

(ii) The Company's Statement in Reply dated 6 July 2023;

(iii) The Claimant's Rejoinder dated 20 July 2023;

(iv) The Claimant's Bundles of Documents - CLB 1, CLB 2, CLB 3, CLB 4 and CLB 5;

(v) The Company's Bundles of Documents - COB1 & COB 2;

(vi) The Claimant's Witness Statement - CLW1 - WS (1) & (2) (Miss Sui Ng Ching @ Ng Ching);

(vii) The Claimant's Witness' Statement - CLW2 - WS (1) & (2) (Mr Lee Che Seng);

(viii) Company's Witness Statement - COW1-WS (Mr Siew Wing Tien);

(ix) Company's Witness Statement - COW2-WS(1) & (2) (Miss Ding Lee Nan).

Introduction

[4] The dispute before this Court relates to the claim by Sui Ng Ching @ Ng Ching ("Claimant") that she was constructively dismissed from her employment without just cause or excuse by Houses Lightings Sdn Bhd ("the Company") on the 26 October 2020.

[5] As the name of the Company suggests, the Company is involved in the business of selling various retail items for house lightings. The Claimant commenced employment with the Company on the 27 July 2015 as a sales representative with a basic salary of RM2,500.00. There were no known complains or dispute between the Claimant and the Company until March 2020. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Company implemented certain Company operations procedures to withstand and survive the financial hardship brought about by the movement control order (MCO) due to the pandemic. Some of the changes brought about by the Company which affected the Claimant's salary and income did not sit well with the Claimant and the Claimant began to express her dissatisfaction on those issues to the Company but nevertheless continued to work for the Company.

[6] In the month of October 2020, the relationship between the Claimant and the Company deteriorated to such an extent the Claimant alleged that the Human Resources Manager (HR Manager) resorted to threats of unlawful detention of the Claimant if the Claimant did not obey her instructions. The Claimant also alleged that the HR Manager verbally abused and humiliated her on numerous occasions in the midst of others including the Company's customers with the view to drive the Claimant out of her employment with the Company. The Claimant in response to the HR Manager's action of threatening her with unlawful detention lodged 2 police reports against the Company but nevertheless continued reporting for work as usual.

[7] It is the Claimant's contention that having tolerated the Company's conduct for some time, she could no longer tolerate the conduct of the Company's officers anymore and as such on the 26 October 2020 treated herself as constructively dismissed and in doing so listed 8 grounds beginning with events that occurred in March 2020 as grounds which were breaches of the fundamental terms of the Claimant's contract of employment with the Company entitling her to treat herself as constructively dismissed. The Claimant now states that she was dismissed without just cause or excuse and prays that she be reinstated to her former position in the Company without any loss of wages and other benefits. The Company denies the Claimant's allegations and states that it did not dismiss the Cl