Customize Consent Preferences

We use cookies to help you navigate efficiently and perform certain functions. You will find detailed information about all cookies under each consent category below.

The cookies that are categorized as "Necessary" are stored on your browser as they are essential for enabling the basic functionalities of the site. ... 

Always Active

Necessary cookies are required to enable the basic features of this site, such as providing secure log-in or adjusting your consent preferences. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable data.

No cookies to display.

Functional cookies help perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collecting feedback, and other third-party features.

No cookies to display.

Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics such as the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.

No cookies to display.

Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.

No cookies to display.

Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with customized advertisements based on the pages you visited previously and to analyze the effectiveness of the ad campaigns.

No cookies to display.

Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill

[EMPLOYMENT] Special Alert: Forced Resignation Or Constructive Dismissal? Employee To Take A Stand

SUHANA ABDUL SAMAD v AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRIES SDN BHD

(Kuala Lumpur Industrial Court Case No.: 4/4-1356/21)

 

In cases of forced resignation and constructive dismissal, the facts of an employees’ dismissal are in dispute. In view of this, the burden is on the employee to prove on a balance of probabilities that he / she was either forced to resign or constructively dismissed.

Commonly, in both situations of forced resignation and constructive dismissal, the employee would take the position that he / she left employment as a result of the employer’s conduct and hence, was dismissed without just cause or excuse. However, it is important to recognize that there are significant differences between forced resignation and constructive dismissal, particularly, the elements that the employee is required to satisfy in order to prove that he / she was either forced to resign or constructively dismissed.

Therefore, an employee cannot simply claim that she was both forced to resign and constructively dismissed. On one hand, it must be established by the employee claiming constructive dismissal that:

 

a) The employer had by its conduct, breached the very essence or root of the employment contract;

b) The employer failed to remedy the breach despite being given sufficient notice by the employee; and

c) The employee left his / her employment in response to the said breach and not for any unconnected reasons.

 

On the other hand, in alleging forced resignation, the employee must establish that he / she was coerced, persuaded, driven, directed or even invited to resign by the employer, failing which, he / she would be terminated. In the instant case, the Claimant had attempted to abuse the process of the Industrial Court by pleading that she was forced to resign and / or constructively dismissed, despite stating in her letter to the Company (“Notice of Constructive Dismissal”) that she was “constructively dismissed with immediate effect”. The said allegation by the Claimant came after the Company commenced a preliminary investigation against her and other relevant employees, upon discovering a shortage of stock, which led to the Company incurring additional air freight costs of RM186,224.59.

In dismissing the Claimant’s case, the Industrial Court opined that she had changed her stance to one of forced resignation instead of constructive dismissal in preparation of her case when she realised that her claim of constructive dismissal would naturally fail to satisfy the elements of constructive dismissal due to the glaring inadequacies and inconsistencies in her factual narration.

EXPAND ARTICLE

The learned Chairman of the Industrial Court further examined the Claimant’s Notice of Constructive Dismissal and held that other than a vague remark that the Company is fully aware of its alleged “fundamental breaches of her employment contract”, the Claimant failed to set out the said “fundamental breaches” and failed to give the Company an opportunity to remedy those breaches. The learned Chairman further held among others, as follows:

 

a) The Claimant must have realised much later that her claim of constructive dismissal was fundamentally flawed due to subsequent events whereby the Company placed on record that it cannot remedy any breaches not known to it, thereby abandoning her claim of constructive dismissal and pursuing a case of forced resignation;

b) The Company had written to the Claimant on 3 occasions immediately after she left the Company’s employment, asking her to report back to work to air her grievances so that the same can be addressed accordingly by the Company;

c) The Company has a right to proceed with its investigations on matters that it considers necessary to investigate and the entire investigation process did not in any way suggest that the Company was employing any underhanded methods to force the Claimant to resign;

d) There was not a single shred of evidence even remotely suggesting that the Company had engaged in any acts that can be considered as coercing or forcing the Claimant to resign; and the Company had no interest in seeing the Claimant leave its employment in the midst of

e) an ongoing preliminary investigation as can be seen from the Company’s conduct in asking the Claimant to return to work on 3 occasions.

It is clear from the instant case on either one, in the event that the other claim fails. Further, the employers conduct subsequent to an allegation of either forced resignation or constructive dismissal is crucial in protecting its interest and rebutting such baseless allegations. This is demonstrated by the Industrial Court’s extensive consideration of the Company’s act of fervently hoping for the Claimant’s return to work to help the Company with the investigation process. Therefore, employers ought to take immediate remedial actions upon receipt of any allegation of forced resignation or constructive dismissal by employees.

The employer was represented by partner Shariffullah Majeed, and senior associate Arissa Ahrom, of Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill. The Industrial Court Award may be found here.

Arissa Ahrom, Senior Associate (aa@lh-ag.com)

If you have any queries, please contact the author or her team Partner, Shariffullah Majeed (sha@lh-ag.com).

Share this article

Partners

Learn more about our partners who specialize in this area

Shariffullah Majeed

Partner

Shariffullah Majeed

Partner