Court chairman D Paramalingam said the claimant, an IT helpdesk & human resources director, had no record of disciplinary action in more than six years of service with Corevate System Sdn Bhd.

He also noted that she was not given any warning or dismissal letter, and was only informed verbally of her dismissal a few days before she was removed.

Paramalingam said the company’s reasons for dismissing the claimant, which first came to light in its statement in reply, were nothing more than an afterthought to justify its wrongful actions.

“After analysing the facts and evidence in this case, this court finds that the claimant’s dismissal from her employment was orchestrated by her ex-husband.

“It was purely actuated by malice and with the sole intention to drive the claimant out of her employment after their divorce. The company’s action was done without just cause and excuse,” he said in an award handed down on Dec 12.

The court awarded the claimant, who was earning RM7,000 a month, a total of RM151,200 in compensation. The claimant was awarded RM42,000 as compensation in lieu of reinstatement, and backwages of RM109,200 after a 35% deduction for post-dismissal earnings.

The claimant had joined the company as sales coordinator cum IT helpdesk analyst in 2014. She took on her present role in 2018 and became a shareholder in 2020, but was sacked two years later.

She married the managing director in 2004. They have three children.

In defending the dismissal, the managing director claimed that the claimant had spread misleading information about him which was unrelated to her employment with the firm. He also accused her of defaming him to his clients and said her actions had caused irreparable damage to the reputation of the company.

“The claimant had also started harassing numerous other employees, which caused disturbance, anxiety and disharmony at the workplace. One of the company’s employees had confirmed this and informed me that this was a contributing factor to the resignation of several colleagues,” he said.

The managing director further alleged that to further her own personal interests in the midst of their marital discord, the claimant had removed original documents relating to property owned by the company from its business premises. He said copies of the documents were later produced as exhibits in an affidavit filed in connection with their divorce proceedings.

“I was shocked to see these documents exhibited as only I had access to these documents in the company’s office. It was also discovered that the claimant had deleted from the company server the firm’s customer data, financial documents as well as employee details, without consent,” he said.

Paramalingam said he found no evidence that the allegations of misconduct were ever communicated to the claimant. He said they were not put into writing as no such letter was ever produced in court. There was also no evidence of any disciplinary action against the claimant.

“To compound matters, there was no show cause letter issued or even a domestic inquiry conducted with regard to the alleged acts of misconduct. During cross-examination, the claimant testified that she did not even know the reasons for her dismissal from employment at the material point in time.

“As it stands, this court is unable to ascertain whether these allegations of misconduct or indeed the reasons for dismissal were ever communicated to the claimant,” the award read.

As for the documents which the company had alleged were removed without consent from the office server, Paramalingam said the claimant had testified that these papers were previously in their matrimonial home.

He said the claimant had access to the documents as she was also a director in the company, adding that the company failed to rebut her testimony on this.

Paramalingam said this was a very peculiar case where the marital problems between the directors of the company had seeped into the workplace, causing a toxic environment, culminating in the claimant’s dismissal.

“What is even more perplexing is that no written notice of dismissal of the claimant from her employment was ever issued. Instead, the dismissal was done verbally and this is not disputed by the company,” he said.

As such, he said the dismissal of the claimant from her employment was done without just cause and excuse.

Jazzmine Khoo Wei Ching and Ho Shu acted for the claimant. Dinesh Nandrajog and Lesley-Ann Yong Eu-Min appeared for the company.