Question$1$

$($i$)$ Based on the case of Matrix Global Education Sdn Bhd v Felix Lee Eng Boon $[2023]2$ CLJ$34,$asstatedbelow,discussreasons whetherFelixLeehasastrong arguments forconstructivedismissal.

$($ii$)$ Fromthedecision oftheCourtofAppeal,what arethelegal principleslaiddownby thecourt.

Brieffacts

The respondent, Felix Lee, was employed by the appellant, Matrix Global Education Sdn Bhd$,$ as its Chief Executive Officer $($CEO$)$ and was responsible for managing educational institutions owned by the appellant $($the schools$).$ After, three and a half years of service, the appellant decided to remove therespondent from his position as CEO and, in his stead, appointed an interim CEO. The basis for thedecision was there were numerous complaints from parents about declining academic standards and adrop in the quality of education at the schools; and that there was a decrease in student admission andretention. The respondent was offered an alternative position as Head, Group Corporate Affairs & Communications on a fixed term contract basis but the offer was later withdrawn after the appellant received information of the respondent$$s involvement in certain irregularities during his tenure as CEO.

Negotiations took place between both parties, following which the respondent tendered his resignation subject to receiving six months$$ salary in lieu of notice, full waiver of his child$$s tuition fees with oneof the schools, and restructuring of the appellant$$s car ownership scheme to allow the respondent anadditional three months to repay the car loan. However, despite the appellant honouring the terms of the agreement reached vide an exchange of emails, the respondent made a representation for reinstatement on the basis that he considered himself to have been dismissed without just cause or excuse, which representation was heard by the Industrial Court.

Decision

The Court of Appeal noted that although the appellant suggested that the respondent should contemplate resigning in light of the numerous grievances raised against him, it was an undeniable factthat after the suggestion was put forward, the respondent commenced discussions with the appellant to secure an improved severance package. The Court of Appeal was of the view that conduct of the respondent in entertaining and entering into negotiations for settlement on terms does not fit snugly and indeed cannot support what he later asserted at the Industrial Court that he was constructively dismissed. The Court of Appeal referred to cases upheld by the Employment Appeal Tribunal in the United Kingdom such as Sheffield v Oxford Controls Co Ltd $[1979]$ ICR $396$ where it was held that where an employee was threatened that if he did not resign he would be dismissed and the threat caused the resignation, that amounted to a dismissal in law; but where the resignation was brought about not by the threat of dismissal but by other factors such as the offer of financial benefits, there was no dismissal; and Logan Salton v Durham Country Council $[1989]1$ RLR $99$ where it was heldthat the employee$$s termination of employment was by way of mutual agreement when he resignspursuant to an agreement entered into freely and without duress and under which he benefitted from a financial consideration.

The Court of Appeal went further to say that if the respondent firmly believed that the series of actionsof the appellant which he complained against are interrelated and have resulted in a repudiation of hisemployment contract, then he must demonstrate and be perceived as having dissociated himself fromthe appellant$$s actions and forthwith walk out of his employment and treat himself as having beenconstructively dismissed. Any allegation by an employee that he was $$forced to resign$$ must beexamined meticulously by the Industrial Courtto determine how the coercion was applied.If acompany$$s intentions were simply to terminate the employee$$s employment, the employee should waitforthe company to do soand then bring the matter before the Industrial Court