A witness for a claimant who is suing her ex-boss for dismissing her on grounds of gender discrimination told the Industrial Court today that his commission, unlike his former colleague, was raised to augment a loss in salary after his sales volume decreased.

Cheong Peng Chai, manager of parts and dealership development for UMW Industries (1985) Sdn Bhd, said that his over-riding commission of 0.4 percent was adjusted to 1.75 percent when the sales volume of his new job had decreased from RM1.5 million per month to RM500,000 per month.

He was supporting the testimony of former branch executive Tay Heong Kin, 44, who filed a constructive dismissal suit against UMW Industries where she had worked for 20 years, seeking reinstatement to her former position as section head of parts and services section, Shah Alam.

Tay had told the court on Dec 14 last year that according to company policy, whenever an employee is transferred, his or her commission rates would be adjusted. However, her redesignation from a section head to sales adviser saw no change in her commission although those of her colleagues were adjusted.

She also claimed that a colleague had shouted at her in a meeting and called her "a yelling wild dog", but when she brought the complaint to her then divisional manager Lee Chin Min, he had told her that she 'deserved it' and it was not his problem. She said he had told her to get out of his office.

Cheong in his testimony today admitted that he had brought up a colleague's complaint of being called "a yelling wild dog" to the manager, requesting him to report the matter to the Human Resources Department, but no action was taken.

He also told the court that he was transferred from the parts and services department in 1998 because of a job rotation exercise and claimed to be unaware of a restructuring exercise, as claimed by the management in court today.

'Yelling like a wild dog'

Former manager Lee, who is now UMW's general manager, told court chairperson Abdul Hashim Abu Bakar that the company had been planning restructuring exercises since late 1997 due to the Asian financial crisis. He said that the claimant was aware of it.

Lee said several meetings were conducted where the staff, including Tay, were told to be more sales focused, careful of expenses and cost, and productive in the management and operation of business.

However, he said that Tay was unhappy with her new duties which included servicing customers and sales. She was dissatisfied with the list of customers assigned to her, he said, but was given the chance to air her grievances as to the kind of customers she preferred and the management made adjustments according to her advice.

"When Tay brought the complaint of a colleague calling her 'a yelling wild dog', I had spoken to the person concerned and was told the circumstances surrounding the allegation which led to him to utter the words 'yelling like a wild dog', and not 'a yelling wild dog'," said Lee.

"I had explained the situation to Tay, but she was not happy and accused me of taking the other colleague's side. She then started shouting in his office, so I told her that since we could not have a meaningful conversation she should leave the room," he added.

Tay's counsel Ravi Nekoo submitted to the court that his client's termination of service was a flagrant violation of the rules of natural justice, was mala fide and amounted to an unfair labour practice in the field of industrial law and ought to be struck down.

He said that "the company has committed an act of victimisation and gender discrimination against Tay and that her dismissal was without just cause and excuse".

The hearing continues on April 16 and 17 with the plaintiff's witnesses.

Related stories