The court upheld that an employer's right to retrench is valid when based on genuine business needs, and procedural adherence is crucial.

[1] The Ministerial reference in this case required the court to hear and determine the claimant's complaint of dismissal by the company on 29 July 2016.

I. Procedural History

[2] The court received the letter pertaining to the Ministerial reference under s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 on 6 March 2017.

[3] The matter was fixed for mention on 30 March 2017, 25 May 2017, 13 July 2017, 8 August 2017, 28 August 2017, 26 September 2017, 25 October 2017, 13 November 2017, 28 November 2017, 7 December 2017, 22 February 2018, 6 March 2018, 13 March 2018, 20 March 2018, 27 March 2018 and 19 April 2018.

[4] The trial proceeded on 7 May 2018 with the company's sole witness whereas the claimant took the stand on 8 May 2018.

[5] On the mention date of 22 June 2018, the court requested parties to file further submissions on the issue of discrepancy on the date of dismissal of the claimant.

II. The Parties' Position On The Merits

(a) The Claimant

[6] The claimant joined the company as its Payroll Manager on 23 March 2015 with a salary of RM13,500.00 and a transport allowance of RM500.00.

[7] The claimant has stated in her pleadings that she had continued to work in the company until she received a letter dated 18 July 2016 from the company terminating the claimant's services with immediate effect under the purported grounds of poor company performance, business requirements and redundancy.

[8] Despite claiming that the claimant's position had become redundant due to business reasons, the company continued to employ the claimant's subordinates who had joined the company after the claimant.

[9] The claimant's position as Relationship Manager, APAC was still needed and still existed at the material time as it had been taken over by other employees in the company.

[10] The claimant's termination of services by the company is a form of victimisation and mala fide due to the following:

(i) no prior notification or discussion with the claimant about the impending redundancy as before;

(ii) no redundancy exercise carried out across the board to her knowledge;

(iii) the claimant was dismissed with immediate effect and with no alternate positions offered to her or assistance in replacement services elsewhere as before;

(iv) no other cost-cutting measures were taken by the company prior to dismissing the claimant's services;

(v) the company had failed to adhere to the Code of Conduct of Industrial Harmony, in particular, the rules of Last In First Out ("LIFO"). Despite her foreigner status, the claimant was neither a contract staff or an expatriate. Instead, she was a permanent employee, hired under the local package, with payments of EPF contributions made both by employer and employee;

(vi) the APAC service delivery is the cheapest in the region as salary payment is done in the Malaysian Ringgit currency, unlike in the other regions, and thus rendering the reason of saving costs by making redundant the staff in APAC Malaysia as illogical.

[11] The company's subsequent actions of going on an aggressive recruitment exercise contradicts its purported reasons of poor company performance, business reasons and redundancy.

[12] The company's advertisement for the position of Accounting Manager - Record To Report could have been filled by the claimant but she was never given the option of choosing either to accept the said position or to be made redundant.

[13] In the advertisement for the post of Senior Analyst R2R-General Ledger-KUA007E, the company had stated, inter alia, that its Business Services Centre is expanding and more activities a