Back
2024 MarsdenLR 13
INDUSTRIAL COURT MALAYSIA
Saritha a/p Muniandy – Appellant
Versus
Smart Chemical Sdn. Bhd. – Respondent
21/4-76/22
In a forced resignation claim, the burden of proof rests on the employee to demonstrate they were coerced into exiting. Unless the employee proves they were explicitly threatened with termination, workplace performance warnings and stress do not constitute grounds for finding a constructive dismissal.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Section 20(3) - Claim for forced resignation - Burden of proof lies on the employee to prove that resignation was involuntary and procured by a threat of dismissal if they refused (Paras 15, 17, 35).
(B) Constructive dismissal - Principles of forced resignation - Mere advice or warnings regarding performance or personal conduct do not constitute a threat of termination or compulsion capable of vitiating a voluntary resignation (Paras 17, 18, 24).
(C) Evidence - The existence of a severance package and an employee's decision to accept the same following a period of reflection indicates voluntary resignation rather than an act of coercion (Paras 25, 27, 28).
Facts of the case:
The claimant initiated a claim for unfair dismissal, alleging forced resignation due to workplace hostility and harassment. The employer contended that the resignation was purely voluntary, prompted by the claimant's ongoing personal financial difficulties, health issues, and workplace stress. The employer maintained that the claimant had been supported throughout their tenure and that warnings regarding performance were standard professional feedback rather than coercive threats.
Findings of Court:
The court found no evidence of a credible threat of dismissal or systemic coercion by the employer. Instead, the court concluded that the claimant resigned of their own accord, noting that there was no immediate pressure to resign and the claimant had sufficient time for reflection. The acceptance of a severance payment further solidified the validity of the resignation.
Issues: Whether the claimant was subjected to force or coercion compelling them to resign, and if so, whether the resulting termination was without just cause or excuse.
Ratio Decidendi: To succeed in a claim of forced resignation, the claimant must prove they were placed in a position where they had no alternative but to resign to avoid being dismissed. The court held that without a clear threat that the employer would sack the employee regardless of their choice, the resignation remains a voluntary act. Workplace dynamics, including performance warnings or discussions regarding suitability, do not fulfill the legal threshold for constructive dismissal.
Result: Case dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual history regarding the claimant's employment and resignation circumstances. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. claimant's allegations of workplace bullying and coercion. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. procedural record of the case and evidentiary documentation. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 4. legal requirements and burden of proof for forced resignation cases. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. evaluation of whether the claimant's resignation was voluntary or forced. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 6. analysis of the bullying allegations and performance-related warnings. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 7. judgment that resignation was voluntary and valid, dismissing the claim. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
REFERENCE
[1] This is a reference by the Director General Industrial Relations Malaysia, under Section 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 dated 04.01.2022 pertaining to the impugned dismissal of Saritha A/P Muniandy (“the Claimant”) by Smart Chemical Sdn. Bhd. (“the Company”) on 01.01.2021.
FACTS
and broadly the Company’s Case
[2] The Claimant had initially been working under a sister company namely Focus Pigment Sdn. Bhd. (Focus Pigment) commencing 07.05.2014 as Sales Coordinator when the team only consist of the Claimant and the current General Manager (GM), one Mr. Raymond Kolandai. Upon being confirmed on 01.08.2016 and as the Company gradually expand and develop there are more staffs employed by the Company and Mr. Raymond was promoted as the GM and Claimant also later re-employed/ promoted as the Senior Customer Service (Senior CS) under the company. The Claimant’s job scope was gradually changed to more of supervising including assignment and delegation of task at Kapar warehouse to her subordinates compared to the previous job scope which required her to be hands on under Mr. Raymond.
[3] The Claimant has no substantial issue with her work performance at all material times until she started to have health concern around 2018 as admitted by the Claimant when she started being stressful and require medical attention and more rest (as alleged by the Claimant). The Company and Mr. Raymond had always been accommodating to the Claimant considering her working with the Company since early stage. Then following Ms. Moon joining the company later in between 2018 — 2019, the Claimant started to complain about Ms. Moon being her superior’s working style to Mr. Raymond from time to time as previously the Claimant worked under Mr. Raymond directly who was not always in the office but now due to the expansion of the company, Ms. Moon was engaged as the direct supervisor that oversee the Claimant and other employees in office. It is undisputed that there is no complaint from any other employee of the company who worked under Ms. Moon except the Claimant.
The company’s accommodation accorded to the claimant
[4] Mr. Raymond as the GM had offered to transfer the Claimant to the Penang branch but the Claimant refused. Despite some mistakes made by the Claimant, which were pointed out by Ms. Moon and the Company, the Company never take any disciplinary action against the Claimant but merely constantly reminded her and encourage her to improve in her
works. The Company even engaged more subordinates to assist the Claimant on her job scope which she only need to delegate the works to the ground staffs after the superior Mr. Raymond and/or Ms. Moon assign the task to her.
Warning Letter
[5] On or around 05.10.2020, the Company issued a warning letter which is the second warning letter against the Claimant on her negligence / omission as the supervisor on ground to ensure proper checking before loading goods into the lorry for delivery which had alerted the headquarter of the Company after Mr. Raymond called in the Claimant and the other personnel involved to inquire and heard all of the affected staffs’ explanation. The Claimant reacted by sending multiple emails to the Company’s top management and Mr. Ra
