Constructive dismissal requires a significant breach by the employer impacting the core of the employment contract; dissatisfaction or pressures alone do not constitute a breach.

[1] This is a reference made by the Director General of Industrial Relations dated 12 September 2022, pursuant to s 20(3) Industrial Relations Act 1967 , for this Court to hear and determine the matter of dismissal of Raja Segar A/L Ragavan (the Claimant) by Emirates Supply Chain Services Sdn Bhd (the Company).

[2] This matter was referred to be heard and decided by this Court, according to the reference by the Director General of Industrial Relations dated 12 September 2022.

[3] The hearing of this matter was held on 16 May 2024 and 31 May 2024, presided by the then Chairman of Court 13, Yang Arif Puan Selva Rani Thiyagarajan.

[4] The award for this matter will now be handed down by the current Chair of Court 13, who took office with effect from 18 November 2024.

A. Factual Matrix

[5] Based on the pleadings filed, the facts of this case can be summarized as follows:

5.1 The Claimant commenced employment with the Company in the position of Team Leader Warehouse, effective 4 January 2021 with a basic monthly salary of RM5,000.00 and monthly transport allowance of RM215.00.

5.2 The Claimant's salary was then adjusted to RM5,125.00 per month, with the provision of monthly travel allowance being discontinued.

5.3 Pursuant to the employment contract dates 9 November 2020, cl (3) states as follows:

3. Probation You shall serve an initial probationary period of three (3) months. Therefore, your probationary period may be extended to another three (3) months, if required, at the sole discretion of the management. During the probationary period, either party may terminate the contract of employment at any time by serving to another party one (1) month notice or one (1) month salary in lieu of notice, without the need to specify any reason thereof.

5.4 On or around 7 April 2021, the Claimant was issued with a show cause letter by the Company for wrongfully declaring zero quantity for an inbound shipment, when in fact the said container had measurable quantity of goods.

5.5 The Claimant responded to the show cause letter by stating initially that he should not be responsible for the issue, yet then stating I like to apologize on this issue because my synq user id need to logout when Im not at satellite 2.

5.6 The Claimant's probationary period was extended for another 3 months', after the end of the initial 3 months' probationary period, for the Company to assess his performance.

5.7 On or around 8 May 2021, the Claimant allegedly sustained occupational injury when he is said to have hit his right knee against his workstation (the 8 May 2021 incident).

5.8 A few days after the 8 May 2021 incident, the Claimant was found to be identified as High Risk in the MySejahtera App and was requested to observe the SOP following his High Risk status and consequently was not required to attend at the Company's premises during the quarantine period.

5.9 The Claimant then took sick leave for a continuous period of 41 days in total, details of which are as follows:

(a) From 18 May 2021 till 22 May 2021;

(b) From 25 May 2021 till 31 May 2021 (including hospitalisation leave for 3 days ie between 25 May 2021 and 27 May 2021); and

(c) From 1 June 2021 till 29 June 2021.

5.10 As the Claimant was up for probation evaluation in early June 2021 at the end of the 6 months' probationary period, the Company was left with no choice, but to conduct such evaluation on or around 7 July 2021 ie barely 6 working days after the Claimant's return to work from the prolonged absence.

5.11 The Claimant's evaluation was conducted by panel consisting of the Claimant's immediate superiors then ie Mr Maha, the Distribution Warehouse Manager, Mr Wai Jun Hung, the Assistant Warehouse Manager (JH) and Mr B Saravanan, the Assistant Wa