Back
2024 MarsdenLR 1891
INDUSTRIAL COURT KUALA LUMPUR
MUHAMMAD FARIQ ROSLI – Appellant
Versus
AIRASIA X BERHAD – Respondent
Award No: 1308 Of 2024 [Case No: 3/4-2700/20]
The court upheld the redundancy dismissal based on economic necessity, affirming that the employer's actions were bona fide and complied with legal standards, including the application of redundancy principles.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Subsections 20(3) and 30(6) - Employment (Termination and Lay-Offs Benefits) Regulations 1980 - Claimant dismissed on grounds of redundancy during economic downturn due to pandemic - Court determined termination was with just cause and excuse based on established case law principles - Court referenced previous cases for redundancy criteria and bona fide actions. (Paras 8, 10, 15, 31)
(B) Redundancy - The Court confirmed that redundancy occurs when an employer needs to reduce its workforce, and assessed the validity of the Company's claims regarding economic necessity and adherence to procedural fairness. (Paras 13, 14, 19)
Facts of the case:
The Claimant was employed by the Company since 2011 and dismissed on 10 June 2020 as part of a redundancy exercise due to significant financial losses exacerbated by the pandemic. The Company cited economic downturn and MCO as reasons for the redundancy. (Paras 2-5)
Findings of Court:
The Company had sufficiently demonstrated that the dismissal was bona fide and adhered to the required legal principles regarding redundancy, leading to the conclusion that the Claimant's case was struck off. (Paras 26, 31)
Issues: The Court addressed whether the termination was justified, the application of redundancy criteria, and the adherence to principles like LIFO in the context of economic necessity. (Paras 15, 18)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the need for a genuine redundancy situation and the bona fides of the Company's actions, affirming that the LIFO principle is not absolute and can be departed from under valid circumstances. (Paras 17, 19)
Result: Claimant's case struck off.
AWARD
Reference
[1] This is a reference dated 22 October 2020 made by the Minister of Human Resources pursuant to subsection 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 [Act 177] arising out of the dismissal of Muhammad Fariq bin Rosli ("the Claimant") by Airasia X Berhad ("the Company") on 14 June 2020.
Brief Facts
[2] The Claimant joined the Company on 11 July 2011 as a Flight Attendant in Air Asia Berhad. Subsequently in a letter dated 24 September 2013 was appointed as a Flight Attendant with the Company on a permanent employment.
[3] The Company is the leading low-cost carrier air in Malaysia and perhaps globally. As with any business or enterprise in the field of travel, accommodation, entertainment and other tourism related industry, the Company suffered from the recent pandemic and the Government's decision to issue a Movement Control Order (MCO) on 18 March 2020. The effect of which this Court is still proceeding with cases from the event to date.
[4] The Company had claimed that it had suffered terrible losses the preceding year, namely 2019 due in most part also to the onset of the pandemic because people did not want to travel especially to this region when the virus was first detected in Asia. According to the Company, this loss had significantly affected the Company and the MCO caused the Company more losses.
[5] The Company had no choice but to conduct a business alignment exercise which caused the redundancy. The Claimant was dismissed on 10 June 2020, as part of the said alignment exercise, on the grounds of redundancy.
[6] The Court has gone through the evidence as given through testimony in Court and the documents and submission that have been filed. Those documents and submissions are listed for ease of reference as follows:
(i) Statement of Case dated 20 December 2020;
(ii) Statement in Reply dated 8 April 2021;
(iii) Rejoinder dated 15 April 2021;
(iv) Bundle of Documents (1) marked as exhibit CLB-1;
(v) Loose Documents marked as exhibit CLB-2;
(vi) The Company's Bundle of Documents (Vol 1) filed on 9 January 2023 marked as exhibit COB-1;
(vii) The Company's Bundle of Documents (Vol 2) filed on 9 January 2023 marked as exhibit COB-2;
(viii) The Company's Bundle of Documents (Vol 3) filed on 12 January 2023 marked as exhibit COB-3;
(ix) The Witness Statement of Lim Gaik Peng signed on 17 January 2023 marked as exhibit COWS-1;
(x) The Witness Statement of Wong Poh Yeng signed on 1 August 2023 marked as exhibit COWS-2;
(xi) The Witness Statement of Kuleswary A/P Tanabarlah signed on 1 August 2023 marked as exhibit COWS-3;
(xii) Witness Statement of Muhammad Fariq Bin Rosli signed on 21 September 2023 marked as exhibit CLWS;
(xiii) The Company's Written Submissions dated 21 February 2024;
(xiv) The Company's Bundle of Authorities (Volume 1) filed on 2 February 2024;
(xv) Claimant Written Submission filed on 5 March 2024;
(xvi) Bundle of Authority filed 5 March 2024;
(xvii) The Company's Written Submissions in Reply dated 16 May 2024;
(xviii) The Company's Supplementary Bundle of Authorities filed on 13 February 2023; and
(xix) Claimant's Submission in Reply filed on 1 August 2023.
[7] The above are the general facts of the case. The case has the same facts and arguments as the case that this Court has decided and furnished by the Company, namely the case of Shairazi Aslam Abd Aziz v. Air Asia Berhad as well as the case of Muhammad Azri Bin Zulkifli v. Air Asia Berhad Award No: 2173 of 2023. The Court is reluctant to repeat the entire discussion all over again. Nonetheless, the Court will go through the normal process in any Award.
The Decision
The Chair And The Role Of The Court
[8] This Court has mentioned in previous cases regarding the change of Chairperson of the Court who has been transferred and this award is being given by the new Chairman. The Court will not repeat the same but invite the parties repeat the same but reference could also be made to the Shairazi case above. In that award
