The Industrial Court, in finding that the employee had left of her own volition, accepted the Bank’s submissions as follows:

(a) An employer has the right to assess employee performance, provided it is done fairly and in accordance with internal policies. The Bank’s decision to extend the employee’s PIP period was done in line with its policies and well within its prerogative;

(b) The employee had accepted the terms of her extended PIP without protest and had been given opportunities to improve her performance. There was no evidence that the employee had been coerced into accepting the extension, especially since she did not protest or file a grievance to record the alleged coercion before walking out one month later; and

(c) The employee’s demand that the Bank issue a formal letter to inform her of the closure of the investigation against her when she already admitted knowledge of the same and as there was no requirement to do so, was too trivial to amount as breach of her employment contract.

In dismissing the employee’s claim, the court emphasised that the burden was on the employee to prove that the Bank had breached any fundamental terms of her contract.

Mere dissatisfaction with performance management processes, including the extension of a PIP period, does not entitle an employee to walk out and plead constructive dismissal, particularly when the employer’s policies permit as such. The case further highlights the need for employers to have a clear performance monitoring policy in place, to address the issue constructively and with transparency.

The Industrial Court Award may be accessed here.

The Bank was represented by Partners Shariffullah Majeed and Nurul Aisyah Hassan, of Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill.

If you have any queries, please contact Partners Shariffullah Majeed (sha@lh-ag.com) or Nurul Aisyah Hassan (nah@lh-ag.com).