Back
2025 MarsdenLR 5216
INDUSTRIAL COURT SARAWAK
JANICE MUNAI MUJAH – Appellant
Versus
SUPER10 CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD – Respondent
Award No: 42 Of 2025 [Case No: 8/4-229/24]
An employee must establish a significant breach by the employer to prove constructive dismissal; mere dissatisfaction with employment conduct is insufficient if negotiated termination terms were accepted.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Subsection 20(3) - Claim for constructive dismissal - Employee terminated during probation without just cause - Court determined that employee failed to prove constructive dismissal; evidence showed termination was by mutual agreement with proper negotiation - Employer has an obligation to demonstrate just cause in dismissal cases. (Paras 15, 17, 28, 30, 80)
(B) Constructive Dismissal - Definition and criteria for establishment - Employee must demonstrate breach by employer sufficiently important to justify leaving - Evidence did not support claims of breach that would warrant constructive dismissal. (Paras 24, 27)
(C) Negotiation and Settlement - A successful negotiation of terms of termination can preclude further claims of dismissal - Court held that employee accepted the terms of her termination fully. (Paras 56, 76)
Facts of the case:
The claimant was employed as a probationary employee and was dismissed after four months. She alleged constructive dismissal citing unfair labor practices and termination without just cause; however, she accepted revised termination terms proposed by the employer. (Paras 3, 10, 80)
Findings of Court:
The court found no constructive dismissal despite the claimant's claims, establishing that she had not proved the foundational conditions necessary for such a claim. (Paras 28, 80)
Issues: Did the employer's conduct create grounds for constructive dismissal? Were the termination conditions legally valid? (Paras 23, 37)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the claimant had failed to meet the threshold for proving constructive dismissal as she accepted the termination terms and revisions, indicating a mutual agreement. (Paras 80)
Result: Claim dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. employment contract details and termination. (Para 1 , 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. claims and defenses regarding dismissal. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. legal standards for termination of probationary employees. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 4. constructive dismissal requirements. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 5. conflicting decisions on constructive dismissal. (Para 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 6. claimant's burden to establish constructive dismissal. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 7. counterarguments regarding employer's conduct. (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49) |
| 8. importance of pleadings in legal arguments. (Para 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54) |
| 9. negotiated terms in termination. (Para 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62) |
| 10. assessment of evidence and intentions. (Para 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69) |
| 11. final settlement and mutual agreement in dismissal. (Para 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78) |
| 12. final judgment and dismissal of claimant's case. (Para 80) |
[1] This is an order of reference dated 5 February 2024 by the Director General of Industrial Relations pursuant to subsection 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 arising out of the alleged dismissal of Janice Munai Anak Mujah (the claimant) by Super10 Construction & Development Sdn Bhd (the Respondent) on 4 July 2023.
Background Of Case
[2] The claimant (CLW1) worked with the Respondent (the Company) for four (4) months before being terminated. She was on probation when she was terminated from her employment. Based on the contract of employment, the claimant was required to serve as a probationary employee for six (6) months with a salary of RM4,000.00 per month.
[3] By a letter of termination dated 4 July 2023 (the Second Letter), the claimant was terminated from her employment. The letter was signed by Liew Sin Yin (COW5) on behalf of Sim Sze Fong, the Company's Managing Director, and acknowledged receipt by the claimant.
[4] Before the Second Letter was issued, the Company had attempted to serve a letter dated 4 July 2023 (the First Letter), which was signed by Sim Sze Fong to terminate the claimant's employment.
[5] However, the claimant rejected it and did not acknowledge receipt of the letter. The First Letter is as below:
[6] Thereafter, the Company issued the Second Letter. The Second Letter is as below.
[7] The letter was accepted by the claimant. As can be seen from the letter, it was prepared with slight amendments, from giving 8 weeks' notice of termination (2 months' notice) to a payment of a lump sum of RM8,000.00 for two (2) months' salary. Additionally, the payment of the sum of RM8,000.00 to be made by 7 July 2023 was also inserted in the letter.
[8] Thereafter, the sum of RM8,000.00 was paid to the claimant through her bank account no 161060872175, which she wrote on the Second Letter.
Pleadings, Bundle Of Documents And Witnesses' Statements
[9] The documents that were referred to by this Court to arrive to its decision are as follows:
a) Statement of Case by the claimant;
b) Statement in Reply by the Company;
c) Rejoinder by the claimant;
d) Agreed Bundle of Document (agreed as to the authenticity and contents) - CLB1;
e) Agreed Bundle of Document (agreed as to the authenticity only) - CLB2;
f) Disputed Bundle of Document (disputed as to authenticity and contents) - CLB3;
g) A witness statement by Janice Munai anak Mujah (CLW1) marked as CLWS1;
h) A witness statement by Jecolyne Anglia Anak Jaya (CLW2) marked as CLWS2;
i) A witness statement by Michelle Asong Choo Sie Lin (COW1) marked as COWS1;
j) A witness statement by Adelina Anak Joannes Laja (COW2) marked as COWS2;
k) A witness statement by Sharifah Ramiezah Binti Wan Za'aba (COW3) marked as COWS3;
l) A witness statement by Rahimah Binti Sabri (COW4) marked as COWS4;
m) A witness statement by Liew Sin Yin (COW5) marked as COWS5; and
n) A witness statement by Kuang Siaw Ling @ Alex (COW6) marked as COWS6.
The Court's Findings
[10] In this case, both pa
