Court chairman Amrik Singh said the Palace of Golden Horses’s member services manager, who will be identified only as “E”, had clearly stated on both occasions that she was not ready to take up the position owing to inexperience.

“E” was offered the position by Golden Horse Palace Bhd’s executive chairman Lee Kim Yew during a meeting at the Mines Resort Golf Club in July 2020.

Amrik said ‘E’ explained to Lee that she had no experience, particularly in the operational aspect of managing the company’s business and was, therefore, incapable of taking up the position.

Lee, the court found, appeared to have accepted the explanation and told ‘E’ to continue in her position.

A second offer was made by a former director, who was not named, in September of the same year.

When “E” declined the offer, she was told by the director that there was no point in the company retaining her services.

“E”, who joined the hotel in 2009, said she never received a formal offer.

Some 14 months after she turned down the offer, the company proposed a mutual termination of her services on grounds that they were no longer required.

“E” claimed the first settlement offer, made in September 2021, came “out of the blue”, with no prior indication that there were any issues with her work performance.

In protest, she said she did not acknowledge the letter, adding that she wanted to study its terms and respond in due course.

On Oct 28, 2021, a second letter, titled “final mutual settlement” was issued by the company to “E”, giving her three months’ notice of the termination of her services.

Two months later, “E” wrote a response to the company.

In her letter, she inquired with the human resources manager about her termination notice period and the end date of her employment, stated in the letter as Dec 20, 2021.

“E” also acknowledged receipt of the company’s letter with the words “under duress”.

On Jan 12, 2022, the company sent her a second mutual settlement letter, in which she was requested to return all company property on the very same day.

Amrik said the company’s decision to axe ‘E’ was arbitrary and capricious, and that she had been dismissed from employment under the guise of a mutual settlement.

“Such action was tainted by bad faith and reflected a clear abuse of discretion.

“Based on this, the dismissal was without just cause or excuse,” he said in a 43-page award handed down on Feb 27.

Amrik also said the company had failed to furnish ‘E’ with a legitimate reason for terminating her services.

He said the company’s decision to appoint new managers to take over her role and job functions persuaded the court to conclude that the company’s assertion of having no suitable position for ‘E’ lacked legitimacy.

“If the company had genuinely believed that the claimant’s (E’s) rejection of the offer was untenable for its operation, it would not have waited 14 months to act on her termination.

“Instead, the company’s action suggests an attempt to fabricate the existence of a mutual settlement, despite no discussion or proposals being initiated in the first place,” he said, adding that the validity of first and second mutual separation letters were in serious question.

Amrik awarded ‘E’ compensation of RM279,510, comprising 24 months back wages and 12 months wages in lieu of reinstatement.

V Jeya Kumar & Evangeline Yii Jia Xin appeared for ‘E’, while P Kavitha Devi and Angelin Vegabalan represented the company.