Industrial Court chairman Augustine Anthony said the company’s reorganisation was designed to bring about the unjust departure of Heng Hui Chuen. He said the allegation of poor performance levelled at her was only a tool to accelerate her exit.
“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.
Anthony said Heineken also failed to prove Heng’s poor performance between 2019 and 2022, which the company cited as grounds for the termination of her employment.
Heng earned a last-drawn salary of RM22,300 a month.
Anthony ordered Heineken to pay her 19 months’ back wages amounting to RM424,270. In addition, Heng was given RM468,930, the equivalent of 21 months’ salary, as compensation in lieu of reinstatement.
He said it was shown that Heng had excelled in her duties, having been promoted on several occasions, leading to her appointment as IT operations head in 2017 after 17 years of service.
“The claimant’s good performance in her early years was consistently maintained as her career progressed. The claimant’s performances exceeded expectations in 2014, 2015 and 2016.
“Then, for the years 2017 and 2018, the claimant’s performance was ‘meeting expectations’,” he said.
Heng was appraised for 2019 by Tee Chin Yi, the company’s new transformation and technology head, as only partially meeting expectations. Tee was appointed in June of that year.
Tee then placed Heng under a performance improvement plan (PIP) the following year.
Anthony said he could not say with confidence that the appraisal of Heng was fair based on her performance in 2019, and the company’s failure to produce adequate documentation to justify its mid-year assessment.
He said it was obvious that the decline in Heng’s performance was not due to her personal failings or poor performance but was more a result of the many changes happening in the company.
“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 said all these changes would have had a degree of impact on Heng’s performance, especially since the first half of 2019 saw her turn in an outstanding performance, which several of her superiors acknowledged.
He said Tee would have required some time to fully understand how the company had been operating in order to assess Heng fairly, especially because he was himself under probation.