Reference

The Honourable Minister of Human Resources made a decision dated 10 February 2002 pursuant to s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1967 ('the Act'). That decision was to refer an appeal made under the Act by Mohd Shahaharuddin bin Wan Muhamad ('the claimant') to the effect that he had been dismissed from his employment by his erstwhile employer, Kenyir Outdoor Leadership Academy (KOLA) ('the company') on 3 May 2005.

The Events

I begin with the narrative. This is as can be discerned from the statement of agreed facts and the evidence before the court. There are in principle four stages which generate from the set of facts. I find it convenient to relate to the facts in this manner.

The first stage opens with the offer by the company dated 3 November 2000 and acceptance by the claimant on 14 December 2000 of a contract of employment ('first contract'). That first contract was for the position of resort director with terms amongst others that the basic salary payable would be RM4,500 per month and that a sales commission at the rate of 2.5% of total monthly sales would also be paid. Of particular relevance is that the contract stated that it was for a fixed duration of six months commencing from 8 September 2000. It further contained a clause providing that the contract "shall be reviewed for further extension. Upon expiry of this contract, either party has the right to decline any extension proposal."

Still on that first stage. Prior to the signing of the first contract a director of the company by the name of Wan Azmi bin Wan Abd. Rahman ('Wan Azmi') was authorized by the company's board of directors to discuss with the claimant his employment on the basis of "secara kontrak". That is on a literal translation - on a contract-basis. This is in common parlance - a temporary contract or as known in industrial jurisprudence - a fixed term contract.

It is the claimant's position that Wan Azmi promised him during the pre-employment negotiations that upon completion of the first contract, the claimant would be offered a contract of employment for a further period of two years at a salary of RM5,000 per month plus a sales commission at the rate of 5% of total monthly sales. This purported promise of Wan Azmi is denied by the company.

Continuing that first stage, the claimant commenced employment on 8 September 2000. But before that, the company submitted to the claimant a draft dated 6 September 2000 on terms of a contract of employment ('draft contract'). The claimant did not accept this draft contract. Instead he wrote a letter dated 27 September 2000 addressed to the group corporate affairs manager of permodalan Terengganu Berhad (PTB) of which the company is a wholly owned subsidiary. This letter for ease of reference I will call the 'claimant's response to the draft contract.' The salient part of this letter is that the claimant referred to his discussion with Wan Azmi and outlined additional clauses to be added to the draft contract.

Still on the first stage. Then on 3 October 2000 the claimant completed and signed a form belonging to PTB entitled "personal particulars form." Next came the first contract on 3 November 2000. That letter constituting the first contract opens with a reference to the draft contract and the claimant's response to the draft contract and called its contents as revised terms and conditions of employment. As stated earlier, this first contract the claimant signed in acceptance.

Now on to the second stage - the claimant's employment during the first contract. Nothing interesting was raised in evidence save for the health of the claimant. The claimant was hospitalised from 14 December 2000 to 23 December 2000 and resumed work on 2 January 2001. On his return the company requested him to undergo the pre-employment medical examination upon which the first contract was subject to. A little late in the day, I cannot help but comment. But the claimant complied for what the instruction was worth. He was