Back
2025 MarsdenLR 3809
INDUSTRIAL COURT KUALA LUMPUR
WOON PUI KUAN – Appellant
Versus
PLENITUDE PERMAI SDN BHD – Respondent
Award No: 513 Of 2025 [Case No: 7/4-2690/20]
The employer must prove the genuineness of retrenchment and compliance with industrial harmony standards; unilateral salary reductions without consent are deemed unfair.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Section 20(3) - Reference for award regarding retrenchment - Claimant employed as Executive - Sales & Marketing, salary RM3,700 - Unilateral salary reduction and termination without just cause - Company failed to prove bona fide retrenchment and compliance with industrial harmony standards - Court found retrenchment unjustified. (Paras 1, 14, 24, 54)
(B) Retrenchment - Justification and bona fides - Employer must prove genuine need for retrenchment and compliance with good industrial practices - Unilateral actions without employee consent deemed unfair. (Paras 16, 50, 54)
Facts of the case:
The Claimant was employed by the Company and faced a unilateral salary reduction during the MCO, followed by termination without consultation. The Company claimed retrenchment due to financial difficulties exacerbated by the pandemic, but evidence showed otherwise. (Paras 2-12)
Findings of Court:
The Company failed to substantiate claims of financial hardship and did not follow proper procedures for retrenchment, leading to a finding of unjust dismissal. (Paras 54-56)
Issues: Whether the retrenchment was justified and conducted in good faith, and whether the Company acted bona fide in terminating the Claimant. (Paras 24, 25)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Company did not provide sufficient evidence to justify the retrenchment, and the unilateral salary reduction constituted a breach of contract. (Paras 54, 56)
Result: Claimant awarded back wages of RM71,040.00 to be paid within 30 days.
AWARD
Reference
[1] This is a reference by the Honorable Minister of Human Resource, to this Industrial Court under s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 ("The Act") for an award in respect of the dispute arising out of the alleged retrenchment of Woon Pui Kuan ("the Claimant") by her employer, Plenitude Permai Sdn Bhd ("Company"). The Court takes cognizance of the following papers and documents files:
Documents In Court Files
I. Statement of case dated - 20 January 2021;
II. Statement of reply dated - 12 March 2021;
III. Claimant's Rejoinder to the Company's Statement in Reply dated - 24 March 2021;
IV. Claimant's Bundle of Document - (CLB6,CLB8);
V. Company's Bundle of Document - (COB1, COB2, COB3);
VI. Witness Statement of the Claimant - WOON PUI KUAN (CLWS3);
VII. Witness Statement of the Company - TAN SENG CHYE (COWS1);
VIII. Witness Statement of the Company - ANN YEOW LING CHWEE(COWS2);
IX. Company's Written Submission dated - 16 August 2024;
X. Claimant's Written Submission dated - 27 July 2024;
XI. Company's Written Submission in Reply dated - 11 September 2024;
XII. Claimant's Written Submission in Reply dated - 15 September 2024;
XIII. The Claimant's Reply to the Company's Common Submission in Reply dated - 8 October 2024;
XIV. The Company's Common Written Submission in Reply dated - 3 October 2024;
XV. The Company's Common Written Submission in Reply to the Claimant's Reply dated - 24 October 2025;
XVI. Company's Common Bundle of Authorities; and
XVIII. Claimant's Common Bundle of Authorities.
Brief Facts
The Claimant's Case
[2] The Claimant was employed by the Company on 3 June 2019 as an Executive - Sales & Marketing with the salary of RM3,500.00. The Claimant's job scope was to sell on going and completed housing projects for the Company. The Claimant received a salary increment to RM3,700.00 and a commission on the following order:
i) October 2019 - RM5,157.46
ii) January 2020 - RM9,944.68
iii) May 2020 - RM2,781.09
iv) July 2020 - RM2,000.37
[3] Notwithstanding the Pandemic, the Claimant still manage to conclude sales for the Company. On 29 March 2020, the Claimant received a MCO Feedback Form via the Plenitude Work from home WhatsApp Group Chat which required the Claimant to respond to the Company by 31 March 2020 on:
i) whether the Claimant agrees to utilize the earned leaves during MCO period from 1st - 14 April 2020; and
ii) whether the Claimant agrees to apply for unpaid leave during MCO 1st - 14 April 2020 if the Claimant's annual leaves are insufficient.
[4] The Claimant agreed to both questions. On 31 March 20920, the Claimant received a further message from the Company asking "Do you agree to the reduction of your salary effective from 1 April 2020 until 31 December 2020 as follow:
a) Salary above RM20,000.00 - reduction of 20%
b) Salary above RM10,000.00 to RM20,000.00 - reduction of 15%
c) Salary above RM5,000.00 - RM10,000.00 - reduction of 10%
d) Salary below RM5,000.00 - reduction of 5%
[5] The Claimant did not agree to the above. Based on her response, on 1 April 2020 the Claimant received an email from the Company informing her that all the allowances and benefits will be withheld. A unilateral decision of the Company.
[6] On 15 April 2020, the Claimant received another email from the Company informing her that her salary will be reduced by 50% and this was done without consulting the Claimant. The Claimant's payslip for April 2020, shows that she was only paid RM1,720.35 whereby 50% of her salary was deducted instead of the agreed 5%. On 4 May 2020, the Claimant received a letter of cessation of contract from the Company which took effect from 5 May 2020. The Claimant contends that despite of her agreeing to the cost cutting measures so as to preserve her continued employment with the Company, the Company unilaterally terminated her contract without just cause or excuse. The Claimant's last drawn salary was RM3,700.00.
The Company's Case
[7] The Company claimed to have dismissed the Claimant wit
