KUALA LUMPUR: The Industrial Court ordered Chempro Technology Sdn Bhd to compensate its former division manager RM543,552 after ruling constructive dismissal without just cause or excuse four years ago.
Court chairman Augustine Anthony, in the March 18 award, ruled that the chemical company had constructively dismissed Chew Chee Siong after his repeated pleas to have business accounts restored to him following a reallocation to other sales personnel fell on deaf ears.
Chew, who was employed by the company since 2011, claimed that the reallocation was done without prior discussion or agreement which had deprived him of about 70 per cent of the monthly commission that formed his wages.
He had treated himself as constructively dismissed after the company did not respond to his May 6, 2020 letter on the matter, further stating that the company had treated him unfairly.
He claimed it was unjust as the commissions earned formed a substantial part of his wages.
Augustine ordered Chew to be paid 24 months back wages of his RM16,986 monthly salary, which totalled to RM407,664; and compensation in lieu of reinstatement worth RM135,888.
The court, said Augustine, had computed Chew's total monthly wages to RM16,986 based on his last drawn basic salary of RM5,350 and commission of RM11,636.
Augustine said the total sum must be paid to Chew within 30 days from the date of the award.
He said the remedy that Chew sought to be reinstated to his former position in the company was unsuitable and must be compensated in lieu of reinstatement.
Augustine said the company had stated that though Chew was entitled to a commission for sales, it had the right and discretion to allocate customers to him from time to time and had the discretion to reallocate his existing customers to other sales personnel.
The company admitted receiving Chew's email dated May 6, 2020, but stated that the company did not have to justify or explain its action and that they were not the cause of his exit from the company.
It denied Chew's allegations of repudiatory breaches and victimisation and that the company was motivated by bad faith in its conduct and actions against him.
Augustine said the court could only import the meaning that the company reserved the right, only in the event the circumstances warrant it, meaning there must be justification for the company's conduct of reallocating Chew's customers to other sales personnel.
"Especially when the company is fully aware that any arbitrary removal of Chew's existing customers will deprive him of commissions earned and disrupt his financial planning, especially when his remuneration earned through sales had dropped by more than 70 per cent.
"The company cannot come to this court, which emphasises the principle of equity and good conscience, and say nonchalantly that it has the discretion to treat an employee in a certain manner and it does not need to justify how it uses or applies its discretion.
"Indeed, the conduct of the company in promising so much financial reward for Chew's hard work but only to snatch it away after he put all his effort into increasing company sales is not only consistent.
"But more seriously, it is an affront to the very promise made to Chew and means nothing looking at the conduct of the company," he said, referring to the company's move to take away Chew's key customers and deprive him of the deserving substantial financial reward for all his hard work.
Anthony said despite a company personnel's evidence that Chew had many more customers which he could develop to generate sales commission, it still did not instil any sense of confidence and there was no guarantee that the customers would not be taken away from him without justification.