Back
2021 MarsdenLR 3744
INDUSTRIAL COURT KUALA LUMPUR
PUSPARANI P BALASINGAM – Appellant
Versus
WESTPORTS MALAYSIA SDN BHD – Respondent
Award No: 498 of 2021 [Case No: 4/4-1614/19]
An employer's reassignment of duties may not constitute constructive dismissal if the employee does not allow sufficient time for resolution of grievances.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act 1967 – Section 20(3) – Reference concerning dismissal – Constructive dismissal alleged by employee claiming lack of job functions and hostile work environment leading to a strained relationship with employer – Consent Memorandum re-establishing employee's position not detailed in job roles – Court upheld employee's reinstatement but found no grounds for constructive dismissal as employer's actions did not constitute a fundamental breach of contract – Employee must give employer sufficient time to address grievances before claiming constructive dismissal. (Paras 4, 5, 22-46)
Facts of the case: The Claimant, employed since 2001 as Legal Manager, alleged constructive dismissal due to job role changes initiated by the Company, failing to return her former job functions despite a Consent Memorandum.
Findings of Court: Employee did not prove constructive dismissal; actions taken by the Company were within contractual bounds and justified.
Issues: Determining whether the employer's conduct constituted just cause for constructive dismissal and if proper notice was given.
Ratio Decidendi: Court found that the employer's reassignment of duties did not breach contract terms substantively, and the employee acted hastily in claiming constructive dismissal without allowing time for resolution.
Result: Claim dismissed.
The Reference
[1] This is a reference dated 21 August 2019 by the Honourable Minister of Human Resources pursuant to s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 ("The Act") arising out of the alleged dismissal of Pusparani P Balasingam("Claimant") by Westports Malaysia Sdn Bhd ("Company") on the 29 April 2019.
[2] The parties in this matter filed their respective written submissions dated 9 December 2020(Claimant's Written Submissions & Executive Summary), 11 January 2021 (Company's Written Submissions), 8 February 2021 (Claimant's Written Submissions in Reply), 10 February 2021 (Claimant's Supplementary Written Submissions) and 23 February 2021 (Company's Written Submissions in Reply).
[3] This Court considered all the notes of proceedings in this matter, documents and the cause papers in handing down this Award namely:
(i) The Claimant's Statement of Case dated 26 September 2019;
(ii) The Company's Statement in Reply dated 14 November 2019;
(iii) The Claimant's Rejoinder dated 14 December 2019;
(iv) The Claimant's Bundle of Documents - CLB1;
(v) The Claimant's Bundle of Documents (No 2) - CLB2;
(vi) The Company's Bundle of Documents - COB1;
(vii) The Company's Supplementary Bundle of Documents - COB2;
(viii) The Company's Supplementary Bundle of Documents Volume II - COB3;
(ix) The Company's record of movement / transfer for the year 2017-2018 - C4;
(x) The Company's Cross-Examination Questions - COB5;
(xi) A copy of the Company's shared folder (referred as an example) -C5;
(xii) The Company's Executive Handbook (pp 90 -91) - C6;
(xiii) The Company's Anti Corruption and Bribery Policy - C7;
(xiv) Email revocation document on 14 May 2019 - C8;
(xv) Claimant's Witness Statement - CLW-WS(1) (Pusparani P Balasingam);
(xvi) Claimant's Supplementary Witness Statement - CLW- WS(2)(Pusparani P Balasingam);
(xvii) Claimant's Supplementary Witness Statement (2) - CLW- WS(3) (Pusparani P Balasingam);
(xviii) Company's Witness Statement of COW1 - COW1-WS(1) (G Ravindran Gunasekaran);
(xix) Company's Supplementary Witness Statement of COW1 - COW1-WS(2)(G Ravindran Gunasekaran);
(xx) Company's Witness Statement of COW2 - COW2-WS(1) (Veeranaidu Ramandu);
(xxi) Company's Supplementary Witness Statement of COW2 - COW2-WS(2)(Veeranaidu Ramandu);
(xxii) Company's Witness Statement of COW3 - COW3-WS(1) (Rajendra Parshad B H Sharma);
(xxiii) Company's Supplementary Witness Statement of COW3 - COW3-WS(2)(Rajendra Parshad B H Sharma); and
(xxiv) Company's Supplementary Witness Statement (2) of COW3 - COW3-WS(3)(Rajendra Parshad B H Sharma).
Introduction
[4] The dispute before this Court is the claim by Pusparani P Balasingam ("Claimant") that she had been dismissed from her employment without just cause or excuse by Westports Malaysia Sdn Bhd ("Company") on the 29 April 2019. In this case the Claimant alleges that she was constructively dismissed.
[5] The Claimant commenced employment with the Company on the 15 February 2001 as a legal officer and was subsequently confirmed as a legal manager on the 14 August 2001. During her employment with the Company the Claimant was transferred several times to other departments namely Project Development Team, Container - Services Department, Legal, Corporate Resource. The Claimant was also assigned work of Company Secretarial matter effective 1 May 2018 whilst the legal matters were assigned to one Mr Veeranaidu Ramanaidu. Effective 10 January 2019 Veeranaidu assumed the Company's Secretarial function. The Claimant then was very dissatisfied by the taking over of her job by Veeranaidu leaving the Claimant with allegedly no specific job function which resulted in the Claimant writing to the Human Resources Department on the 25 February 2019 detailing her grievances particularly and substantially for the return of the legal job function failing which she will treat herself as constructively dismissed. On the 5 March 2019, the Head of the Human Resources of the Company one Mr G. Ravindran Gunasekaran wrote to the Cla
