SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 MarsdenLR 258

INDUSTRIAL COURT KUALA LUMPUR
MAWLUD MUSTAIN – Appellant
Versus
SAPURA BRAKE TECHNOLOGIES SDN BHD – Respondent
Award No: 32 Of 2014 [Case No: 12/4-1944/07]



Constructive dismissal claims hinge on proving a fundamental breach by the employer; mere transfer does not equate to dismissal without just cause when contractual rights are upheld.

Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Section 20(3) - Constructive dismissal - Court examined the circumstances surrounding the transfer of the Claimant from Marketing Manager to Human Resource Manager, determining there was no fundamental breach of contract warranting claim of constructive dismissal as the transfer upheld contractual rights. The Claimant failed to establish required conditions for constructive dismissal. (Paras 20, 21, 35)

(B) Principle of Law - A constructive dismissal claim requires establishing: actual or anticipatory breach of contract; the breach must justify resignation; resignation must be in response to the breach; and timely action taken post-breach. (Paras 20, 22)

Facts of the case:
The Claimant was transferred from the Marketing department to Human Resources and claimed constructive dismissal citing a breach of contract due to this transfer. The Company defended the transfer as within their management rights and beneficial for the Claimant. (Paras 2-36)

Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the Company had acted within its rights and that the Claimant had not proven constructive dismissal; rather, he acted hastily in leaving his position. (Paras 35, 36)

Issues: Primary issues included whether the transfer constituted a fundamental breach of contract and whether the Claimant's resignation was justified in response. (Paras 25)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that transfers within a company are permissible unless conducted in bad faith or detrimental to terms of employment, which was not the case here. The Claimant's self-driven resignation did not constitute constructive dismissal. (Paras 31, 35)

Result: Claimant's claim of constructive dismissal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. constructive dismissal and the right to transfer (Para 1 , 13 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
2. employment history and transfer details. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. claimant's grievances regarding transfer. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 14 , 15)
4. legal standards for constructive dismissal. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
5. criteria for proving constructive dismissal. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
6. employer's rights regarding employee transfers. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
7. court's finding on dismissal claim. (Para 35)

[1] This is a reference by the Honourable Minister of Human Resources made under s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 regarding the alleged constructive dismissal of Mawlud Mustain ("the Claimant") by Sapura Brake Technologies Sdn Bhd ("the Company") on 2 May 2006.

Brief Facts Of The Case

[2] The Claimant commenced employment in the Company with effect from 19 June 1996 in the position of Assistant Manager (Marketing), Grade MM3.

[3] The Claimant was promoted to the post of Manager -Marketing with effect from 1 January 2000 vide a letter dated 31 December 1999. He was later confirmed in the said position on 1 July 2000.

[4] On 1 January 2003, the Claimant was transferred to Automotive Specialist Centre Sdn Bhd and was next re-designated to the post of Sales and Operation Manager with effect from 1 January 2004. Vide a letter dated 1 January 2005, the Claimant was transferred back to Group Business Development, Sapura Industrial Berhad as Marketing Manager, Grade MM2.

[5]Vide a letter dated 7 March 2006, the Claimant was informed that with effect from 1 April 2006, he would be transferred to Group Human Resource and Administration, Sapura Industrial Berhad holding the position of Manager, Grade MM2. He would be reporting to Puan Adilah Omar, General Manager, Group Human Resource and Administration, Sapura Industrial Berhad. The transfer did not entail any change to the Claimant's terms and conditions of employment. Vide a letter dated 20 March 2006, the Claimant wrote to the Managing Director of the Company pertaining to the transfer stating that his knowledge and experience will be more beneficial to the Company in Marketing as opposed to Human Resource. The letter is reproduced as follows:

[6] There were few discussions held between the Claimant and Pn. Adilah Omar pertaining to the issue of transfer. The Company aver that the Claimant was advised to carry out his duties as Manager, Group Human Resource and Administration as he will be afforded assistance via trainings which he will be attending in order to gain knowledge and experience.

[7] The Claimant vide a letter dated 24 April 2006 once again requested that he be reinstated to the post of Marketing Manager and further requested the Management to reply within one week of the said letter. The letter reads as follows:

[8] The Company replied vide a letter dated 27 April 2006 stating that they feel the Claimant is the best person for the position and it has always been the Sapura Industrial Berhad Group's practice to transfer staff among the Group of Companies where there were vacancies and where the Management felt that the employee fits best. The letter also stated that the said practice was the Company's right as reflected both in the Claimant's Letter of Appointment and also in paragraph 20.1 of the Terms and Conditions of Employment for Executives 2006. The letter further states that the Management remained confident that the Claimant would fit well into the post.

[9] The Claimant vide a letter dated 2 May 2006 claimed, inter alia, that the transfer was contrary to the terms and conditions of his employment, and thereby considered himself constructively dismissed effective 2 May 2006. The letter is reproduced as follows:

[10] The Company replied to the Claimant vide a letter dated 6 May 2006 inter alia, denying that there being any fundamental breach in the Claimant's contract of employment caused by the transfer. The Company in the said letter

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top