Case:

Brief Facts:

• Melipoly Enterprise (“Melipoly”) is a company that sells and distributes honey products.
  
  
• Ong Hong Yeok (“Ong”) worked with Melipoly as a Marketing Manager since 2016.
  
  
• Prior to 1.3.2018 Ong was managing 5 outlets for Melipoly. After March 2018 he was managing 3 outlets.
  
  
• Ong’s monthly salary was reduced from RM6,000.00 to RM5,000.00 due to Melipoly’s financial situation until the situation improved.
  
  
• Unfortunately, Melipoly’s financial position did not improve and Ong was then issued a letter of termination dated 6 May 2019, which stated “we have no choice but to terminate your employment due to the current economic recession and a prolonged period of poor sales revenue…”
  
  
• Ong was dissatisfied with the termination and lodged a complaint with the Department of Industrial Relations. The matter was referred to the Industrial Court.

THE DECISION OF INDUSTRIAL COURT (IC)

• The IC found that Ong’s dismissal was without just cause and excuse.
  
  
• Melipoly challenged the decision of the IC at the High Court.

THE DECISION OF HIGH COURT (HC)

• The HC dismissed the challenge by Melipoly.
  
  
• The HC found that Melipoly had relied on other grounds of termination such as unsatisfactory performance, conflict of interest, and sexual harassment, all of which were not stated in the letter of termination given to Ong.
  
  
• The HC found that the IC was right in not inquiring into reasons which were subsequently put up to justify Ong’s dismissal.
  
  
• The HC concluded that the IC was right in ruling that it has jurisdiction to hear Ong’s case although Ong no longer wanted reinstatement by the time of the hearing as he was gainfully employed in another company.
  
  
• Melipoly appealed to the Court of Appeal.

THE DECISION OF COURT OF APPEAL (COA)

• The COA agreed with the HC and found that Melipoly can only rely on the reasons stated in the letter of termination and no other reasons like unsatisfactory performance, conflict of interest, or sexual harassment.
  
  
• The COA found that Melipoly had failed to prove redundancy and since Ong’s function and work as Marketing Manager was reduced but never eliminated, the termination of his employment was without just cause and excuse and the retrenchment was not bona fide.
  
  
• The COA held that the IC does not stop having jurisdiction once a reference is duly made under section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (IRA) even if the remedy of reinstatement is not pleaded or pursued at the hearing.
  
  
• The COA held that the IC is seized with jurisdiction once the Minister had made a reference under section 20 (3) of the IRA and that the IC has such jurisdiction because of the Ministerial reference.