Case Updates

Case Update: Serial Litigant Faces Consequences for Misrepresentation and Habitual Unfair Dismissal Claims

Share:

Print
15 January 2024

EMPLOYMENT LAW
Unfair Dismissal – Misrepresentation – Work Performance – Serial Vexatious Litigant – Industrial Relations Regulations 1967

Ching Suet Yeen v Lepcon Tools (M) Sdn Bhd
Case No.22/4-396/23| Award No. 1 of 2024 | Industrial Court
- see the grounds of judgment here

Facts Ching Suet Yeen (the ‘Claimant’) commenced her employment with Lepcon Tools (M) Sdn Bhd (the ‘Company’) as a Sales Executive in February 2022. She was placed under probation for 3 months. Any commissions that may be paid to the Claimant is based on the Company’s sole discretion and goodwill. The Company contends that after one month into her employment, the Company had received complaints from their customers with regards to the Claimant’s unsatisfactory service as well as her bad attitude. Sometime around March and April 2022, the Company had also found that the Claimant had failed to attend to and service the customers’ shops. The Claimant was also found to have been busy attending to her own personal matters, instead of attending to the customers during working hours and was unable to explain her whereabouts when questioned by her superior. Further, despite being directed numerous times to prepare the reports in the appropriate format, the Claimant failed to prepare the requisite reports after her visits to the customers’ shops in accordance to the Company’s requirement or format. The Company decided to contact the Claimant’s previous employer and found out that the Claimant’s employment history, as provided by her during the job application and interview, was false. Due to the Claimant’s unsatisfactory work performance, the Company was unable to confirm the Claimant in her position in May 2022, but nevertheless decided to give her another chance to improve herself. However, the Claimant failed to show any improvement, culminating in the Company terminating her services on 25 May 2023. The Claimant however contends that the Company’s Sales Manager had forced her to resign from her employment, without disclosing any reasons. She also contends that she was not given any warning letters and a domestic inquiry was never held. Thus, the Claimant filed a case in the Industrial Courts claiming compensation of RM15,000.00 from the Company.  Hence, this case.

Issues 1. Whether the Claimant, whilst on probation, displayed poor work performance and attitude during her employment with the Company?
2. Whether the Company’s decision to dismiss the Claimant was capricious or arbitrary?

Held In dismissing the claim, the Chairman, YA Tuan Paramalingam A/L J. Doraisamy held that not only had the Claimant been untruthful to the Company by falsely disclosing her previous employer during her job application, she had also displayed poor work performance and attitude. Despite the Company giving the Claimant a further opportunity by extending her probationary period, the Industrial Court observed that the Claimant remained stubborn and refused to improve on her work performance and attitude. The Industrial Court was of the view that the Claimant was engineering a move to get herself sacked from her employment. Therefore, the Claimant’s dismissal by the Company was not capricious or arbitrary as the Company was justifiably dissatisfied with the Claimant’s work performance and attitude. Further, this was not the first time the Claimant had misrepresented on her employment details to her prospective employer hence the Industrial Court held that the decision to not confirm the Claimant in her employment was not tainted by any mala fide. It was also brought to the attention of the Industrial Court that the Claimant had brought several unfair dismissal claims in the Industrial Court against at least 10 of her former employers, clearly indicating that the Claimant is a serial vexatious litigant and has a habit of bringing claims against her former employers. The Industrial Court proceeded to decide that litigants should not abuse the forum presented by the Industrial Court to air their grievances on employment issues in order to make personal financial gains by hauling up their employers to Court. Under such circumstances, the Industrial Court found it to be justified in ordering costs against the Claimant as a deterrent not only to the Claimant but also to other litigants from filing multiple claims against their former employers in order to seek financial gain.

Zul Rafique & Partners
{15 January 2024}

Please email your details to [email protected] if you would like to subscribe to our Knowledge Centre.

Let's Connect!
➭ LINKEDIN: Zul Rafique & Partners
➭ INSTAGRAM: @zrplaw