A branch service executive told the Kuala Lumpur Industrial Court today that her ex-employer practised unfair labour practices and gender discrimination in demoting her.

Tay Heong Kin, 44, has filed a constructive dismissal suit against UMW Industries (1985) Sdn Bhd where she had worked for 20 years, seeking reinstatement to her former position as section head of Parts and Services Section Shah Alam.

Her 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".

Tay, in suing for cost and damages besides reinstatement, told court chairman Abu Hashim Abu Bakar that she was summoned to meet Kua Kock Heng, her supervisor on Feb 27, 1998 and told that all section head positions would be abolished due to restructuring for more cost effective management.

She said that she was told her position will be re-designated from a management position to a direct sales function in March the same year, carrying the position of senior service advisor.

She was then earning a basic salary of RM1,550.00.

Transferred

"I have complained to the management that I was underpaid but was told that commissioned staff were always paid lower," said Tay.

She said she was assured by the Employee Relations Manager Adibah Mokhtar that she had nothing to worry about and that her salary will not be adjusted.

Tay added that subsequently she was not allowed to carry out her normal function as section head.

"Instead they brought in another manager, Tan Meng Fatt to head the department when the position of section head was supposed to be abolished in March," said Tay.

In May, Tay was told by her department head, Services Manager Lee Chin Min, that there was no longer a position for her in the department and that she would be transferred to the Nilai branch.

"I refused the transfer because I had just uprooted my family from Taiping in 1997, where I first started work with the company," she said.

"I cannot afford the loss of income because I am a single mother with two school going children. My husband also does not provide me with any maintenance," she told the court.

She added that by going to Nilai she would have to report to branch executive Yan Hock Lye who was the same job grade as her at grade 12.

Demoted

At the end of May, Tay was asked to sign a photocopy of an appraisal form which indicated that she was stripped of her supervisory role. She said she was no longer allowed to recruit, guide, monitor and supervise her 25 subordinates.

"This is a serious omission and meant that I was demoted to merely a salesperson," said Tay.

She then sent a complaint letter to the Human Resources Department on June 1.

She was later summoned by Human Resources Manager Maslan Mansor who informed her that she would have to accept her new designation or be retrenched or be requested to resign.

She was then issued a transfer letter to Taiping but did not heed the letter because the notice period was too short. At that time, she said that her son was taking the Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM) examination and she did not want to disrupt his studies.

Morever, she said the she would be receiving less commission in Taiping since the branch had a much lower sales volume.

In Shah Alam, her sales volume was about RM500,000 per month and her commissions were about RM4,000 (one percent).

Tay claimed that it was the company's policy that whenever an employee is transferred, commission rates would be adjusted.

Lower commissions

In July she was re-designated to a product executive position and had to do sales for equipment which she claimed she was not trained for.

She said although her salary was adjusted to RM1,690.00, her commission rates were lower and instead of averaging RM4,000 per month she would be receiving only about RM178.00

"It is unfair to victimise me when I had always performed well in my work. I had always ensured that my sales and collection targets were met each month," said Tay, adding that she worked 12 hours every day at the office.

She left the company on July 27, 1998 and had been seeking counselling services from All Women's Action Society in Petaling Jaya.

She said that apart from loss in income, she had suffered emotionally due to several embarrassing situations which took place in the company.

She claimed that she had received two poison pen letters which slandered her, accusing her of having an affair with her boss.

She had also been scolded by her colleagues who called her "a yelling wild dog". She said she brought her complaints to her superior but was told that she "deserved it" and that her complaint was not his problem.

Chairman Abu Hashim said that the court had to determine whether Tay's constructive dismissal case had just cause and reasonable excuse.

He said that the court needed to establish whether the restructuring plan was valid and whether Tay had been victimised due to her gender since she was the only one affected by the restructuring plan.

The hearing continues tomorrow.