Case:

Brief Facts:

• The respondent, Felix Lee Eng Boon (Felix), was employed as the CEO of the appellant, Matrix Global Education Sdn Bhd (Matrix), under a fixed term employment.
  
  
• Felix’s scope of duties and responsibilities would encompass his proper management of the Matrix International School and Matrix Private School (collectively known as the Schools).
  
  
• However, since 2016, Matrix had received numerous complaints from parents in respect of the declining academic standards and drop in quality of the Schools.
  
  
• In response to the complaints, a sum over RM1 million was refunded.
  
  
• Matrix suffered a decrease in student admission and student retention in the year 2016 and 2017 which Matrix attributed to the drop in quality of education provided under the tenure of Felix as CEO.
  
  
• Concerned about Felix’s continued ability to manage the Schools, along with the fact that there was information that Felix was involved in certain irregularities during his tenure as CEO, Matrix advised Felix to resign and informed him that he would be given six months’ salary in lieu of the notice.
  
  
• Felix, being legally qualified, entered into a negotiation with Matrix to achieve better severance package for his resignation.
  
  
• After negotiations where the terms of a separation were mutually agreed, Felix wrote an email to Matrix wherein he tendered his resignation as the CEO.
  
  
• Matrix accepted Felix’s resignation and honoured what had been agreed.
  
  
• But Felix then claimed he was constructively dismissed.

THE DECISION OF THE INDUSTRIAL COURT

• The Industrial Court took the position that Felix was forced to resign and that those terms negotiated do not bar him from claiming that he had been constructively dismissed.
  
  
• The Industrial Court ruled that Felix was dismissed without just cause and ordered Matrix to pay back wages and compensation in lieu of reinstatement.
  
  
• Matrix challenged the decision at the High Court.

THE DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT

• Matrix failed in its challenge and the High Court affirmed the decision of the Industrial Court.

THE COURT OF APPEAL – APPEAL ALLOWED!

• Felix cannot have the best of both worlds; negotiating and accepting the terms of a separation and then at the same time claiming that he had been constructively dismissed.
  
  
• A mere suggestion, advice or option to resign is not conclusive of constructive dismissal or forced resignation.
  
  
• The higher one is in the employment ladder, the higher the test that one has been forced to resign.
  
  
• If an employee agrees to put in his unqualified letter of resignation or acceded to the request that he should resign, it would be difficult for him to later complain that it was a “forced resignation” unless there is evidence to show that he had been manhandled or threatened to be bashed up unless he resigns.
  
  
• The moment an employee puts in his letter of resignation on terms agreed, that is a concluded contract, and no longer a case of constructive dismissal.
  
  
• In the present case, Felix as the CEO with a legal qualification was both conscious and careful in his choice of words in his email of resignation and along with his conduct of negotiating his terms of settlement, he cannot be said to be an employee who was “forced to resign” for fear of being terminated.