Constructive Dismissal Case: Wong Yoke Moy v. Agensi Pekerjaan ASK Resources Sdn. Bhd.

On April 14, 2025, the Industrial Court of Malaysia delivered a landmark ruling in the case of Wong Yoke Moy against Agensi Pekerjaan ASK Resources Sdn. Bhd.. The case centered on the allegation of constructive dismissal, where the Claimant, Wong Yoke Moy, argued that she had been forced to resign due to the oppressive and unjust actions of her employer. The Court’s decision was based on several legal principles, including the employer’s duty of mutual trust and confidence, the emotional distress caused by prolonged harassment, and the failure to substantiate the allegations of misconduct.

Background of the Case

Wong Yoke Moy had been a confirmed employee of Agensi Pekerjaan ASK Resources Sdn. Bhd. since June 25, 2008. Her last position in the Company was as a consulting manager, earning RM 5,250 per month. The Company specializes in providing recruitment and job placement services.

However, a significant conflict within the Company emerged in 2021 when Alex Lin Kein Eng, one of the two founding directors, resigned and started a competing business. This set the stage for tensions that eventually led to the dispute between the Company and the Claimant.

In June 2023, the Claimant was accused of divulging confidential competitor information during a bi-monthly meeting, an accusation which led to a series of show-cause letters issued by the Company. Despite the Claimant’s responses to these letters, the Company did not take action to resolve the allegations. Instead, it continued to issue more letters, subjecting her to a continuous state of uncertainty and emotional distress. Furthermore, the Claimant was suspended without pay during this period.

Process: Legal Proceedings

The process of the dispute revolved around whether the Claimant had been constructively dismissed due to the oppressive conduct of her employer. The key issues at the heart of the case were:

Repeated Show-Cause Letters:

• The Claimant was issued a total of 9 show-cause letters by the Company, each requiring her to respond within a 48-hour window. Each letter contained accusations of misconduct.

• Despite the Claimant’s prompt and detailed responses, the Company remained unsatisfied with her explanations and continued to issue new letters, prolonging the uncertainty.

• Specific Breakdown of Show-Cause Letters:

  • 1st show-cause letter: Issued on June 19, 2023.

  • 2nd show-cause letter: Issued on June 23, 2023.

  • 3rd show-cause letter: Issued on June 28, 2023.

  • 4th show-cause letter: Issued on June 30, 2023.

  • 5th show-cause letter: Issued on July 5, 2023.

  • 6th show-cause letter (extension of 1st letter): Issued on July 7, 2023.

  • 7th show-cause letter: Issued on July 9, 2023.

  • 8th show-cause letter (3rd letter): Issued on July 14, 2023.

  • 9th show-cause letter: Issued on July 17, 2023.

• Quote: "The Company issued the 1st show cause letter on the 19.06.2023... The Claimant responded on the 20.06.2023... The Company never seemed to be satisfied with the Claimant’s explanations."​

• Explanation: The repeated nature of these letters without any final decision caused distress and anxiety for the Claimant. The Court found that this pattern of harassment and intimidation was a clear violation of the fundamental terms of the employment contract.

  
  

Harassment and Intimidation:

• The Claimant alleged that the Company’s actions were not only unjust but also constituted harassment and intimidation.

• She claimed that the Company had subjected her to a continuous barrage of accusations without providing a clear resolution.

  
  

Failure to Resolve Allegations:

• The Company did not resolve the allegations made against the Claimant, instead prolonging the process without taking any decisive action. This left the Claimant in a state of emotional distress.

  
  

The Claim of Constructive Dismissal:

• The Claimant treated her resignation as constructive dismissal, arguing that the Company’s conduct breached the essential terms of her employment contract.

  
  

Outcome: Court’s Decision

After reviewing the case, the Industrial Court concluded that the Claimant’s resignation was indeed a constructive dismissal. The Court based its decision on the following key findings:

Harassment and Intimidation:

• The Court found that the continuous issuance of show-cause letters was oppressive and harassing, as the Claimant was given insufficient time to respond, and no final resolution was ever reached.

• Quote: "The repeated nature of these letters without any final decision caused distress and anxiety for the Claimant."​

  
  

Breach of Employment Contract:

• The Company’s actions were determined to be a breach of mutual trust and confidence, a fundamental aspect of any employment relationship.

• Quote: "The conduct of the Company was clearly acts of intimidation and harassment of the Claimant... clearly acted against its duty and of mutual trust and confidence."​

  
  

Lack of Evidence:

• The Company failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the allegations of misconduct made against the Claimant, rendering its actions unjustified.

• Quote: "The Company could not produce any cogent evidence to substantiate the barrage of show cause letters issued out to the Claimant incessantly with no end at sight."​

  
  

Constructive Dismissal:

• The Court ruled that the Claimant’s resignation was a constructive dismissal, as the Company’s actions effectively made her employment untenable.

• Quote: "An employer does not like a workman. He does not want to dismiss him and face the consequences. He wants to make the process as painless as possible for him."​

  
  

Remedy and Compensation

Given the circumstances of the case, the Court decided that reinstatement was not an appropriate remedy, as the Claimant had found new employment. Instead, the Court awarded compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

The final award was RM 131,250, which included:

• Back Wages: RM 52,500 (for 10 months of unpaid salary).

• Compensation for 15 Years of Service: RM 78,750 (calculated as one month’s salary for each year of service).

Conclusion

The Wong Yoke Moy v. Agensi Pekerjaan ASK Resources Sdn. Bhd. case serves as a critical reminder of the legal protections available to employees facing unjust treatment in the workplace. It emphasizes the importance of due process, evidence-based decision-making, and the duty of mutual trust that employers owe to their employees. The Court’s decision also highlights the potential emotional and psychological toll of an oppressive work environment and reaffirms the principle that employees have the right to claim constructive dismissal when an employer’s conduct breaches the fundamental terms of the employment contract.

References

• Industrial Relations Act 1967, Section 20: Governs the process of dismissal and constructive dismissal claims.

• Wong Yuen Hock v. Syarikat Hong Leong Assurance Sdn. Bhd., Federal Court, 1995: Case law outlining the role of the Industrial Court in dismissal cases.

• Goon Kwee Phoy v. J & P Coats (M) Bhd., Federal Court, 1981: Relevant case law defining the role of the Court in determining the validity of dismissals.

AWARD_41719.pdf

Download PDF • 632KB