After 21 years of employment with Heineken Malaysia Bhd, a former senior IT manager was wrongfully fired and received RM893,200.
Augustine Anthony, the chairman of the Industrial Court, claimed that Heng Hui Chuen’s unfair departure was the result of the company’s restructuring. He claimed that the accusation of subpar performance against her was merely a means of hastening her departure.
“This court is of the view that the claimant’s claim of unfair and unjust treatment ever since a new transformation and technology director was appointed is demonstrable and had merits,” he said in an award dated Nov 5.
According to Anthony, Heineken was also unable to provide evidence of Heng’s subpar work from 2019 to 2022, which the business used as justification for firing her.
Heng’s monthly last-drawn pay was RM22,300.
Anthony mandated that Heineken reimburse her RM424,270 for 19 months’ unpaid earnings. Furthermore, Heng received RM468,930 as compensation in lieu of reinstatement, which is equal to 21 months’ wages.
He stated that after 17 years of service, Heng was appointed as the head of IT operations in 2017 after demonstrating her excellence in her role through multiple promotions.
“The claimant’s good performance in her early years was consistently maintained as her career progressed. In 2014, 2015, and 2016, the claimant’s performances surpassed expectations.
“Then, for the years 2017 and 2018, the claimant’s performance was ‘meeting expectations’,” he said.
Tee Chin Yi, the company’s new transformation and technology chief, evaluated Heng for 2019 as only partially fulfilling objectives. That year, in June, Tee was appointed.
The following year, Tee put Heng on a performance improvement plan (PIP).
Given Heng’s performance in 2019 and the company’s inability to provide sufficient material to support its mid-year assessment, Anthony stated he could not be certain that Heng’s appraisal was fair.
He claimed that it was clear that Heng’s performance had declined as a result of numerous changes occurring inside the organization rather than her own shortcomings or subpar work.
“Between July 2019 to January 2020, the claimant’s subordinates were transferred out of her supervision and control, leaving her with a significantly reduced number of subordinates, which was certain to affect her unit’s overall performance.
“With the probationer (Tee) barely accustomed to the company’s work environment suddenly supervising a long-standing senior employee, the claimant had to now deal with another sudden change, as he was appointed as the transformation and technology director of the company in January 2020,” he said.
Anthony claimed that Heng’s performance would have been somewhat impacted by all of these adjustments, particularly given that she gave an exceptional performance in the first half of 2019 that was recognized by a number of her superiors.
According to him, Tee would have needed some time to completely comprehend the business’s operations in order to fairly evaluate Heng, particularly because he was also on probation.
