DHL Asia Pacific Shared Services Sdn Bhd v Parameswary A/P Subramaniam
(Industrial Court Award No. 1697 of 2024)
This dispute relates to a claim of constructive dismissal brought by a Senior Associate – Credit & Collection.
The Employee had been issued several warning letters for, among others, dereliction of duties, negligence, and operating an outside business during working hours. Simultaneously, the Employee was placed on a performance improvement plan (“PIP”) for her unsatisfactory performance.
The Employee apologised for her acts of misconduct and her unsatisfactory performance. Throughout the PIP, regular reviews were held with the Employee. However, there were no improvements in her performance. This led to her PIP being extended. Shortly after, the Employee resigned, citing excessive workload which led to stress.
Pertinently, her resignation letter made no mention of harassment, victimisation, or forced resignation, which were the grounds of her claim before the Industrial Court. In essence, the Employee alleged that the Company had engineered her exit by, among others: (a) issuing show cause and warning letters; (b) placing her on a PIP and extending the same; (c) overloading her with work; and (d) changing her incentive plan.
In finding that the Employee was not constructively dismissed, the Industrial Court took into account that:
(a) The Company issued the show cause and warning letters through proper disciplinary channels. Nothing suggested it was done to unfairly target the Employee. The Employee also had a chance to respond but failed to do so or raise any objections.
(b) The Company exercised its discretion in rejecting her explanation to the show cause letter. If the Employee disagreed, she could have challenged the decision in writing, which she failed to do so.
(c) The Employee failed to dispute the acts of misconduct outlined in the warning letters. A reasonable employee who believed the allegations were false would have challenged them.
(d) The Employee failed to document her alleged grievances in writing, nor was it raised to the Human Resources Department, management, or her immediate superior.
(e) The Employee made no formal objection to the PIP or its extension. Without written grievances, there was no basis to believe that the PIP process was unfair.
(f) The Company had the contractual right to revise or withdraw its incentive policy.
(g) The Employee’s resignation letter was silent about any targeted overwork, unfair treatment, or mismanagement. It simply mentioned that the heavy workload caused her stress.
This decision reinforces two things for constructive dismissal claims. Firstly, the importance of documenting any grievances or objections in writing. Secondly, the importance of wordings used in a resignation letter. It must reflect the alleged intolerable conditions. In this case, the Employee’s silence, lack of formal complaints, and failure to dispute the acts of misconduct significantly weakened her case.
The Company was represented by Partner, Amardeep Singh Toor, and Associate, Wong Lien Taa, of Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill.
If you have any queries, please contact Partner Amardeep Singh Toor (ast@lh-ag.com) or Associate Wong Lien Taa (wlt@lh-ag.com).
Learn more about our partners who specialize in this area
