Suspension for investigation purposes does not constitute constructive dismissal unless there is evidence of fundamental breach of contract or intent to repudiate, which the claimant failed to prove.

AWARD

Reihana Abd Razak:

Claimant's Pleaded Case

[1] The claimant commenced employment with the bank on 1 August 2011 as a Branch Manager.

[2] The claimant resigned from the bank on 2 January 2014 and on 1 July 2015, she rejoined back the bank as Mortgage Sales Manager with a monthly salary of RM8,500. At the time of her dismissal, the claimant's last drawn salary was RM9,470.00.

[3] The claimant avers that on 14 February 2019, the bank's Head of Industrial Relations one Mr Kavin Lim informed her that the bank had decided to suspend her to facilitate investigations on the fraudulent conducts of several of the bank's employees.

[4] The claimant contends that the said suspension was not due to any complaint of the bank of any fraud or misconduct against her, but based on unverified complaints received by the bank from whistle blowers.

[5] The claimant contended that on 28 March 2019 she was asked to attend an interview conducted by the bank's Head, Fraud Control Unit one Mr Jagathesan Munisamy and the Senior Executive, Industrial Relations one Mr Simon Ng Soon Sen to assist investigations on the fraudulent conducts in the Referral Rewards Program (RRP) allegedly committed by four of her team members whom the bank had suspended prior to suspending her.

[6] The claimant asserts that on 2 May 2019 the bank lifted her suspension but accused her of being negligent in discharging her duties.

[7] The claimant contended that the bank then imposed punishments to withhold her salary increment for one year, 10% deduction of incentives earned over the period of three months amounting to RM2,136.34 and gave her a stern disciplinary warning in the event she found to have committed acts of negligence or misconduct in the future.

[8] The claimant avers that the bank also imposed a Performance Improvement Plan ("PIP") on her with oppressive terms for a period of six months effective 16 May 2019.

[9] The claimant contends that despite her refusal and objection, the bank informed her that they will proceed and implement the PIP without further reference to her.

[10] The claimant asserts that she had on 3 June 2019, 18 June 2019, 26 June 2019, 5 July 2019 and 22 July 2019 expressed her objection in writing and appealed to the bank for the suspension, punishment and PIP be revoked.

[11] The claimant contends that the bank rejected her appeals vide letters dated 7 June 2019 and 23 July 2019.

[12] The claimant avers that she on 31 July 2019 tendered her resignation letter claiming constructive dismissal.

[13] The claimant alleged that her suspension was unjustifiable while the punishments and PIP imposed on her was unlawful and in breach of the rules of natural justice.

[14] The claimant avers that the conducts of the bank are acts of victimisation, which led her to leave the employment with the bank.

Bank's Pleaded Case

[15] The bank avers that it did not at anytime dismiss the claimant, but the claimant herself on 31 July 2019 tendered her resignation and left her employment with immediate effect.

[16] The bank avers that on 25 October 2018 it received whistle blowers' emails about fraudulent activities in the submission of the bank's Referral Rewards Program (RRP) claims, which alleges the bank's Senior Executive of Mortgage Sales of submitting falsified RRP claims by forging the signatures of customers and agents.

[17] The bank contends that the suspension of the claimant is to facilitate the bank in carrying out its investigation of the fraudulent activities alleged on her team and her involvement when she verified and signed off on the RRP submissions for her team members.

[18] The bank avers that they conducted a series of interviews and investigation into the alleged fraudulent activities and the investigation revealed that the claimant's team were involved in the alleged fraudulent activities.

[19] The bank asserts that due to the claimant's negligence and of not exercising due care, there was misuse and abuse in the RRP activities where the bank suffered loss tha