Back
2025 MarsdenLR 1160
INDUSTRIAL COURT KUALA LUMPUR
JEFFRY SEKHAR ARULANDU – Appellant
Versus
AIR ENERGY CONSULTING (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD – Respondent
Award No: 937 Of 2025 [Case No: 22(20)/4-13/23]
An employee's resignation is voluntary unless proven to be coerced by the employer's threats or duress; mere suggestions to resign do not constitute forced resignation.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Section 20(3) - Reference concerning dismissal - Claimant alleged forced resignation amounting to constructive dismissal - Court found no evidence of coercion; resignation was voluntary - The Claimant was employed as Finance Manager and had no formal complaints about his performance - Disciplinary action was initiated due to complaints against him - Claimant's resignation was deemed a voluntary decision to avoid potential termination. (Paras 1-64)
(B) Constructive Dismissal - Definition and requirements - Employee must demonstrate that resignation was due to employer's coercion or threat of dismissal - Mere suggestion to resign does not constitute forced resignation - Burden of proof lies with the employee to establish circumstances of coercion. (Paras 56-60)
Facts of the case:
The Claimant was dismissed by the Company on 31 March 2022 after a series of complaints against him regarding workplace conduct. He alleged that he was coerced into resigning following a notice of suspension and threats of termination. (Paras 6-18)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Claimant's resignation was voluntary and not forced, as he had the opportunity to contest the allegations against him. The Claimant did not provide evidence of coercion or duress. (Paras 61-64)
Issues: Whether the Claimant was forced to resign and if so, whether the dismissal was with or without just cause. (Paras 33-34)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that an invitation to resign in the context of disciplinary proceedings does not equal dismissal; the employee must prove that resignation resulted from coercion. (Paras 54-56)
Result: Claimant's case dismissed.
[1] This is a reference made under s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (Act 177), arising out of the dismissal of Jeffry Sekhar a/l Arulandu (hereinafter referred to as "the Claimant") by Air Energy Consulting (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd (hereinafter referred to as "the Company") on 31 March 2022.
[2] The reference by the Director General of Industrial Relations ("DGIR") in this case required the Court to hear and determine the Claimants' complaint of dismissal by the Company on 31 March 2022.
I. Procedural History
[3] The Court received the letter pertaining to the reference by the DGIR under s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 on 23 December 2022.
[4] The matter was fixed for mention on 22 February 2023, 8 November 2023, 22 November 2023 and 18 December 2023.
[5] The trial proceeded on 4 July 2024, 5 July 2024 and concluded on 14 October 2024.
II. The Parties' Position On The Merits
(i) The Claimant
[6] The Claimant commenced his employment with the Company as a Finance Manager effective 19 April 2021 with a basic salary of RM18,500.00 per month. He was confirmed in his employment on 1 March 2022.
[7] Throughout the Claimant's employment with the Company until 28 March 2022:
i. The Claimant was performing his duty without any formal complaints whatsoever about his work performance, ability to work and deliver on the job and assignments given to him. This included his principal role as the Finance Manager which required him to deal with the team of accountants below him who were required to report to him;
ii. The Claimant was also additionally required to perform the role of an accountant for the accounting work of one the entities in Singapore and he was preoccupied performing this additional work from time to time, though this was not under his employment position of a finance manager;
iii. In carrying out his duties in the employed role as well as the additional role given, the Claimant was reporting to his Finance Director, also described as the Line Manager, ie Mr Adrian Yong Thiam Loy (COW-2);
iv. One of the accountants in the team of accountants handling the Korean portfolio reporting to the Claimant was Kwon Minjeong ("Ms Kwon"), who had joined the Company later sometime in July or August 2021.
[8] From time to time when Ms Kwon was reporting to the Claimant, work-related difficulties arose in that Ms Kwon failed to give the required feedback on the job assigned to her. Ms Kwon also failed to cooperate or respond to the queries raised by the Claimant about the job assigned to her. The Claimant was justified to query on the incomplete job assignments of Ms Kwon with incomplete records found regarding the monthly closing of accounts and also regarding the corrective works to be done by her. Over a period of time, Ms Kwon had displayed a non-responsive attitude towards the Claimant compared to other accountants in the team at the workplace.
[9] On 17 March 2022, when dealing with Ms Kwon on her job-related matters, the Claimant found that she was not cooperative at all, which led to a misunderstanding. Ms Kwon had refused to communicate about improving her quality of work on the job assigned to her. The Claimant later discovered that Ms Kwon had left the office following the incident of 17 March 2022 and she did not report to work to work for the next 2 days and also that she had complained to COW-2 about the said incident.
[10] On 22 March 2022, COW-2 called up the Claimant for a discussion and suggested that he wanted a solution about Ms Kwon, who was a Korean expatriate working with the Company and needed for the Korean portfolio. The Claimant was then advised to have better communication with Ms Kwon and to allow her more time to improve her work. The Claimant accepted this directive and the matter ended there.
[11] The Claimant later found out that Ms Kwon was refusing to work with the Claimant and was working from home and that she had not returned to the work place. With this impasse continuing, which was beyond the cont
