In MNJ v Myburgerlab Sdn Bhd (Award 488 of 2025), the Industrial Court had to consider whether the Claimant was forced to resign or had done so voluntarily. In this case, the Claimant submitted two resignation letters on the same day (each citing different reasons), but later attempted to retract the resignation and claimed he was instructed to resign.
Brief Facts
- He submitted two resignation emails on 15 February 2022, each with a different reason for resignation:
- In the first e-mail, he claimed that he was resigning because he had a better job offer.
- In the second e-mail, three hours later, he said “because of a company financial issue, it’s caused me to volunteer myself to resign”
- One week later, after seeking legal advice, he attempted to retract his resignation, alleging he was coerced into resigning. In this e-mail, the Claimant alleged:
- he had been coerced into resigning by COW1 and was given an ultimatum to either resign or face termination, as the Company lacked the financial means to proceed with the Central Kitchen (which the Claimant was responsible for); and
- there was an impending salary reduction for February and March, which would result in a 37.5% reduction of his basic salary, and this influenced his decision.
- Upon receipt of the Claimant’s ‘retraction’ e-mail, the Company sent a reply to summarize a telephone conversation with the Claimant. During the conversation, there was an agreement to waive the Claimant’s notice period instead of the Claimant retracting his resignation. Pursuant to this mutual agreement, the Claimant was to submit a letter requesting an early release on the same day.
- The Claimant sent an e-mail to the Company to express his gratitude for their understanding, and he formally requested an early release.
- The Company then issued an Acceptance of Resignation Letter to the Claimant. The Claimant acknowledged receipt of the letter, and agreed that he had no further claims whatsoever against the Company.
- After that, the Claimant lodged a representation for reinstatement, claiming unfair dismissal through forced resignation.
Court’s Findings
The Court concluded that the Claimant had voluntarily resigned and failed to discharge the burden of proving that he was forced to do so:
- The claimant issued two resignation emails on 15 February 2022 with different reasons. The Court viewed these inconsistent reasons as undermining his credibility.
- There was no mention of coercion at the time of resignation. Neither resignation e-mail mentioned threat, duress, or coercion. Instead, both were courteous, and expressed gratitude. Telegram messages sent by the claimant after his departure included apologies and expressions of thanks to the employer. The claimant only alleged coercion after seeking legal advice, which the Court viewed as an afterthought rather than a genuine assertion of duress at the time of resignation.
- While the Company did meet with the Claimant before his resignation and expressed its dissatisfaction with his performance and alleged mismanagement of the Central Kitchen, this did not amount to coercion or duress. It is a well-established and routine practice for an employer to inform an employee of deficiencies in performance and to discuss potential consequences, including disciplinary action, in the event of alleged misconduct. In such circumstances, it is entirely reasonable for the employee to consider resignation as a prudent course of action to mitigate the risk of further disciplinary consequences.
- After attempting to retract his resignation letters, the Claimant agreed to an early release from his notice period. He confirmed in writing that he had no further claims against the company, which was further evidence that the resignation was voluntary. Even if there had been some pressure initially (which was not proven), the later agreement to an early exit nullified any earlier claims of forced resignation. This was especially since the negotiated exit was also after the Claimant had obtained legal advice.
Key Takeaways
A unique aspect of this case was the claimant’s issuance of two separate resignation letters on the same day, each citing a different reason for leaving. After receiving legal advice, the claimant attempted to retract both letters and instead alleged that he had been forced to resign. These inconsistencies, particularly the conflicting resignation letters and the claimant’s subsequent conduct (such as negotiating an early release from the notice period and sending cordial Telegram messages post-resignation), gave the Court an opportunity to evaluate not just the content of what was said, but how the claimant’s narrative shifted over time.
Ultimately, it became a credibility issue for the Claimant, as the Court held that the Claimant’s attempt to reverse his decision to resign “is clearly an afterthought, and the Court is not inclined to entertain such a strategy, which appears to be an attempt to manufacture a claim of forced resignation.”
This case also serves as a reminder for employers: discussions involving significant employment decisions (such as resignations, performance issues, or misconduct) should be clearly documented and handled in a manner that avoids any suggestion of undue pressure, particularly where such discussions may lead to an employee’s departure.
***
This article was written by Donovan Cheah (Partner) from Donovan & Ho’s employment law practice.
Donovan & Ho is a law firm in Malaysia, and our employment practice group has built a reputation for providing strategic employment advice to local and global organisations. Our team of employment lawyers provide advice on employment law and industrial relations including review of employment contracts, policies and handbooks, advising on workforce reductions, and managing dismissals of employees for poor performance or misconduct. We also represent clients in unfair dismissal claims and employment-related litigation.
Have a question? Please contact us.
