Mutual termination of employment is valid when both parties consent without coercion; the burden of proof lies on the Claimant to establish dismissal, which was not demonstrated.

Reference

[1] This matter arises from a reference made by the the Honourable Minister of Human Resources pursuant to s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 [Act 177] arising out of the alleged dismissal of Parimala A/P Balasingam ("the Claimant"), by Monash University Malaysia Sdn Bhd ("the Company"). The reference was made on 5 July 2020.

Background

[2] This case was previously tried and concluded by the former Chairman of Court 5, Yang Arif Tuan Ahmad Zakhi Bin Mohd Daud who had since retired from the Industrial Court. I have been requested to prepare and deliver the Award for this case. Therefore, this Award is written based on my reading, perusal and evaluation of the facts and evidence contained in the notes of proceedings prepared by the former Chairman and from the documents made available to me.

[3] There are six (6) Claimants who claimed unfair dismissal against the Company in which the matters were heard together in which the facts were identical and the issues to tried were also similar. The details of the Claimants and their case number are as follows:

[4] In handing down this Award, the following were considered by the Court:

(a) the record of proceedings;

(b) the notes of proceedings prepared by the former Chairman;

(c) Statement of Case dated 5 January 2021;

(d) Statement in Reply dated 23 February 2021;

(e) Rejoinder dated 9 April 2021;

(f) Claimant's Bundle of Documents marked as CLB-P1;

(g) Claimant's Supplementary Bundle of Documents (Vol 1) marked as CLB-P2;

(h) Claimant's Supplementary Bundle of Documents (Vol 2) marked as CLB-P3;

(i) Company's Bundle of Documents marked as COB-P1;

(j) Company's Supplementary Bundle of Documents marked as COB-2;

(k) Company's Bundle of Documents (3) marked as COB-3;

(l) Company's HR Staff List marked as COB-4;

(m) Claimant's Common Bundle marked as CLB-5;

(n) Claimant's Witness Statement (Parimala A/P Balasingam) marked as CLWS-P1;

(o) Claimant's Supplementary Witness Statement (Parimala A/P Balasingam) marked as CLWS-P2;

(p) Company's Witness Statement (Janice Wong Yoke Chen) marked as COW-1S;

(q) Claimant's Written Submission dated 11 November 2024;

(r) Claimant's Bundle of Authorities dated 11 November 2024;

(s) Claimant's Reply Submissions dated 25 February 2025;

(t) Company's Written Submissions dated 11 November 2024;

(u) Company's Bundle of Authorities dated 11.2024;

(v) Company's Written Submissions in Reply dated 3 February 2025; and

(w) Company's Supplementary Bundle of Authorities dated 3 February 2025.

[5] All the Claimants testified in their case. Whilst the Company called 1 witness COW-1S, Janice Wong Yoke Chen.

[6] The Company in this case appointed an international management consultancy firm, Reddal in 2018 for the purpose of transforming the Company from campus to research and education platforms in Asia and the aim is to maximize synergies between its different operational areas and improve operational efficiency and effectiveness. This transformation involved several units such as Human Resource, Compliance and Governance, Marketing, External Engagement, Student Services and Student Life. The presentation of the proposed presentation was presented on 28 February 2018. The Human Resources (hereinafter referred to "HR") function was identified as a function where improvement in efficiency could be achieved via a restructuring of its operations.

[7] On 22 May 2018, another presentation deck entitled "Building strategic HR