IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA AT IPOH, PERAK CASE NO. 10/4-1807/19 BETWEEN VELAN @ RAKESHKUTTY A/L VADIVAL …The Claimant AND OMYA MALAYSIA SDN. BHD. …The Company AWARD NO. 2239 OF 2023 Before: Y.A. TUAN ZULHELMY BIN HASAN – CHAIRMAN Venue: Industrial Court of Malaysia at Ipoh, Perak Date of Reference: 30/08/2019 Dates of Mention: 15/10/2019 & 08/11/2022 Dates of Hearing: 04/01/2021, 30/04/2021, 24/03/2022, 11/04/2023 & 12/04/2023 Representation: For The Claimant:

Raam Kumar Messrs. KB Tan, Kumar & Partners For The Company:

Teng Wei Hun with Sarah Binti Azahar Messrs. Skrine Reference:

This is a reference by The Honourable Minister of Human Resources of Malaysia pursuant to Section 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 dated 30/08/2019 which was received by the Industrial Court of Malaysia on 17/09/2019 arising out of the alleged dismissal by way of forced resignation of VELAN @ RAKESHKUTTY A/L VADIVAL (hereinafter referred to as "the Claimant") by OMYA MALAYSIA SDN. BHD.

(hereinafter referred to as "the Company") on 30/11/2018.

AWARD Factual Background:

1. The dispute herein is over the unfair dismissal of the Claimant by the Company by way of forced resignation with effect on 30/11/2018. On the other hand, the Company contends that the Claimant had voluntarily resigned and never forced him to resign.

2. The Claimant joined the Company as Quarry Manager on 03/11/2014 vide appointment letter dated 24/09/2014 (at pages 1-9 of COB-1) and his last drawn salary was RM11,977.00 per calendar month. However, the Company issued a letter dated 01/11/2014 and there exists a term agreed by both parties that the commencement date of the Claimant’s employment was revised/changed from 01/12/2014 to 03/11/2014 (at page 10 of COB-1). The Claimant was confirmed in his employment by the Company on 01/05/2015 (at page 11 of COB). Before the middle year of 2018, the Claimant reported to his superior; Jim Burnett who was transferred out and replaced by Mark Sherwood who then become the Claimant’s superior.

3. From 2014 to 2018 when Jim Burnett was in the Company, the management had no issue with the Claimant’s work performance and there was no complaint whatsoever against the Claimant upon which the Claimant was even given salary increment, incentive and performance bonuses.

4. In 2017, the Claimant’s performance appraisal was rated as “performed well” by his new superior Mark Sherwood and were acknowledged by the new Next Level Manager; Thomas Mangelberger and Human Resource Manager; Vijayabalan Velu (COW-1).

5. Subsequently, in May 2018, the Claimant was placed under Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) dated 31/05/2018 for a period of six (6) months (at pages 12- 14 of COB-1) as the Company alleged that the Claimant is lacking and/or has poor performance on time management, leadership, delegation of duties, works planning and people management which took the Claimant by surprise. His PIP was reviewed on weekly basis by Mark Sherwood and Vijayabalan Velu on his purported poor performance.

6. On 05/09/2018, the Claimant received an email from Mark Sherwood (at pages 18-20 of COB-1) enclosing with the PIP review report and feedback (at page 16-17 of COB-1) alleging that the Claimant is still lacking on his performance by giving the negative comments towards the Claimant. In response, the Claimant had replied to Mark Sherwood’s email on 12/09/2018 to deny the said allegations.

7. Subsequently, on 16/10/2018, the Claimant received a warning letter dated 05/10/2018 (at pages 24-25 of COB-1) from the Company regarding his PIP alleging the Claimant’s progress is slow. The Claimant then had made a reply to the said warning letter vide a letter of reply dated 12/11/2018 (at pages 26-27 of COB-1) to deny all the allegations on his purported slow performance.

8. In August 2018, the Company alleged that the Claimant violated Clause 6.1 of the Procurement Handbook (at page 85-101 of COB-1) in relation to the purchase of good and services that it has been reporte