Cancellation of the church's registration terminated the Claimant's employment, and the subsequent employment offer was valid and not a unilateral change of terms.

[1] This matter arises out of the reference by the Director General for Industrial Relations dated 28 January 2022 pursuant to s 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 , in respect of the dismissal of Gopalakrishnan A/L Rajundra ("the Claimant") by Gereja Perhimpunan Tuhan Grace Sungai Way/Subang Selangor ("the Company") on 11 June 2021.

[2] This is rather an interesting matter involving a claim of dismissal at a place of worship. The parties involved are the Claimant (Gopalakrishnan a/l Rajundram) and the Church (Gereja Perhimpunan Tuhan Grace Sungai Way/Subang Selangor).

[3] The hearing of this matter was held on 26 October 2023, 8 November 2023, 26 February 2024 and 27 February 2024 before YA Puan Selva Rani Thiagarajan, the then Chairlady of Court 13.

[4] The award is now being handed down by the current Chair of Court 13, who took office with effect from 18 November 2024.

Factual Matrix

[5] It is not in dispute that the Claimant commenced employment with the Church on 15 November 2003 and his last held position was Multimedia Executive at the Senior Pastor's Office.

[6] It is undisputed that the Church had on 25 August 2020 received notice of cancellation of registration dated 19 August 2020 from the Registrar of Societies ("ROS").

[7] It is further not in dispute that due to the cancellation, the bank account of the church was frozen. During this time, the Claimant was paid via a project, called Project Ohana.

[8] Subsequently, on 1 April 2021, the Church's appeal against the cancellation was allowed.

[9] On 20 April 2021, a meeting was held between the Church Board and the Church's former employees and the Claimant was informed that he will be re-employed as the Church's employee. The Claimant in his pleading states that the Church Board informed all employees that their employment would "resume".

[10] On 1 June 2021, a letter titled "Offer of Employment" dated 1 June 2021 was issued to the Claimant.

[11] The Claimant takes the position that the Church had unilaterally attempted to change the terms and conditions of the Claimant's employment. The Claimant was required to accept the "offer" without the terms being formalized and agreed upon by the Claimant.

[12] The Church on the other hand pleads that the Claimant was required to submit and discuss his job scope as well as the Claimant's goals with the Church's Human Resource Working Committee. The Church pleads that there was no unilateral attempt to change the Claimant's terms and conditions of employment.

[13] As the Claimant did not respond to the offer letter within the stipulated time, the Church issued a letter dated 11 June 2021 titled "Thank You" to the Claimant.

[14] The Claimant contends in his pleadings that the Church had terminated his employment on 11 June 2021 when it claimed, without basis, that the Claimant had left employment, when in actual fact the Claimant had been dutifully performing his duties up to the said date.

Issues

[15] The issues in this case are as follows:

a. The effect of cancellation of registration of the Church by ROS on the Claimant's employment — does it automatically bring to an end the Claimant's employment?

b. The status of the payment received via Project Ohana.

c. The status of the offer letter dated 1 June 2021.

Evaluation And Analysis

[16] It is not in dispute that ROS issued notice dated 19 August 2020, pursuant to s 13(1)(c)(iv) Societies Act 1966 (Act 832) cancelling the registration of the Church.

(1) Subject to subsection (2), the Registrar may, in the following cases, cancel the registration of any societ