The Issue

(The Statement in Reply for the 1 Claimant)

1 The Company states that the Company periodically carries out appraisals on all employees in the Company and the Clamant was no exception

2 In addition, it is the Company's practice to have regular dialogue between staff and Manager in day-to-day problem solving, particularly when there are comments or complaints made by Clients

3 The Company states that they have complied with "last in, first out" in respect of employees within the same category.Alteratively the Company states that the Clamant's job was redundant and the principle of "last in, first out" does not apply

4 The Company states that relocating the Claimant in other possible posts would have been a demotion of the Claimant

5 The 1 Claimant will state that the retrenchment was in actual fact a disguised dismissal actuated by mala fides for the following reasons:-

(a) One Peter Wong and Dr. Ong, the 1 Claimant's superiors, had on many occasions indicated their displeasure in the 1 Claimant's work

(b) The Company failed to comply with the principle of "last in, first out"

(c) Even assuming that the Company has complied with (b) above, no offer of relocation was made and neither was there an offer to downgrade the 1 Claimant of take a cut in salary

6 The 1 Claimant will aver that the Company did not make a loss to justify the retrenchment.(The Statement in Reply in respect of the 2 Claimant)

7 The Company states that the 2 Claimant was at the material time the Assistant Manger of the Industrial Equipment Division as well as the Head of the Oil&Gas Section and was largely responsible for the promotion of the following products, namely, Velcon, Carter, OPW, and Gilborco

8 The Company states that is lost the Agency for Velcon and Carter in November 1984 and October 1985 respectively. No new agency lines had been introduced by the Claimant since then. The Company further states that the market in respect of OPW and Gilborco products has stagnated

9 The Company states that they have complied with the principle of LIFO in respect of the particular category in the particular department, alternatively the principle of LIFO does not apply as the Claimant's position had become redundant

10 The alternative employment was considered and discussed to no avail

11 The Company was financially sound an and no reason to proceed to retrench the 2 Claimant

12 The 2 Claimant will allege and prove at the trial that the purported retrenchment is a designed dismissal and done in bad faith

The Case

13 The Company called its first witness Encik Chin Yew Liat, the Personnel&Administrative Manager of the Company, since January 1981. He told the Court that the first retrenchment exercise by the Company of the unionised workers was in February 1986. The were retrenchments in January 1986 in Penang Branch - partly due to cost cutting and reorganising, and partly due to recession. In Petaling Jaya Office, one sales clerk was retrenched on 10 February 1986

14 On 1 February 1986, the Company decided not to grant annual increment to the Managing Director, General Managers and Managers, except two General Managers who were given minimal increments. And for the Executives, only a handful were given annual increments but the amounts given were very small

15 The incentive annual bonus for Managing Director, General Managers and Mangers was frozen

16 The 1 Claimant was an Executive - the System/Sales Engineer, who joined the Company on 27 February 1984

17 The 2 Claimant joined the Company firstly as an Executive and later on was promoted to Assistant Manger on 1 August 1984

18 The 1 Claimant and the 2 Claimant were retrenched on 1 September 1986 -- (see Exhibits C-6 and C-8 respectively)

19 In all, there were five executives, including the 1 Claimant and the 2 Claimant, retrenched on 1 September 1986.There have been no replacement for the five posts

20 From the Annual Report for 1987 -- (Exhibit C-10), the profit for year-ending 31 January 1