Jalaldin Hussain:-

[1] This is a reference made under s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 arising out of the dismissal of the claimant by the company on 2 March 2005. The matter was referred to the Industrial Court through a reference ordered by the Honourable Minister of Human Resources dated 28 June 2006 and received by the Court on 6 September 2006.

Brief Facts

[2] The claimant was appointed as a Legal Clerk with the company as of 7 November 1995 as per CLB pp 1 and 2. The claimant was confirmed in his position as of 24 January 1996 as per CLB p 3. The claimant claimed that there was no problem working in the company till June 2000. The claimant's problem with the company started when the company employed one Mr Looi Fook Cheng (COW1) as the Office Manager in June 2001, COW1 was responsible for the administrative functions of the company with overall supervision over all support staffs including the claimant.

[3] COW1 in carrying out his duties had after consulting the Managing Partner of the company, Mr Tan Beng Chai (COW2) and the claimant prepared a Duty Statement for the claimant dated 8 August 2000 as per CLB pp 10 to 13. The claimant was not happy and refused initially to sign the Duty Statement as he claims he was forced to do dispatch work which earlier was done by one Francis. The claimant then consulted COW2 and thereafter, signed the said Duty Statement.

[4] The claimant claims that since then COW1 had used the Duty Statement to control him. This according to the claimant was the cause of differences between COW1 and the claimant. The claimant claims that apart from doing searches presentation and filing many new duties such as "to do filing, service and collection and keeping of records among others" were added to his duty list in the Duty Statement.

[5] The claimant claims that even with the added responsibility, the claimant continued to work diligently and sometime in August 2002 was informed by the Management that he was made Supervisor in the Dispatch Department. The claimant, however, avers that no letter was given to him by the company to confirm his new position as Supervisor despite his numerous pleas.

[6] The claimant also claims that he did argue with COW1 over the Duty Statement and had brought COW1's mistreatment of himself up with COW2. According to the claimant, COW2 called both the claimant and COW1 up and told them to sort out their problems together. The claimant contends that COW2 did not take any action against COW1 with regards to the claimant's complaint of mistreatment. The claimant further claims that there was, however, no change in COW1's attitude and according to the claimant it got even worse in 2004. The claimant alleges that in August 2004, COW1 shouted at him and insulted the claimant in the presence of the claimant's staff, for no apparent reason. This according to the claimant had caused stress and had resulted in him to suffer high blood pressure for which the claimant seek medical treatment.

[7] The claimant alleged that he did complain to Encik Asmet Nasaruddin who was a partner in the company (law firm) and to the Legal Assistants, Mr Suppiah and Mr Kevin Lim about COW1's mistreatment. They, however, could not do anything to assist him as the claimant was not working under them.

[8] The claimant also related an incident when he was summoned to attend a meeting on 20 December 2004. The claimant alleged that at that meeting two (2) allegations were leveled against him by COW2. The first being the tearing of a document that was to be dispatched and the second was that he was making excessive mileage claims and keeping the more lucrative dispatch work to himself thus depriving the other staff of mileage claims. The claimant denied both allegations. The claimant also contends that COW2 had then asked him to find a job elsewhere.

[9] The claimant thereafter went to see Encik Asmet (COW3) to request for a transfer to another department as he was constantly being harassed to resi