Court Of Appeal Doubles Wrongfully Retrenched Executive S Award To Rm1 68mil

---

 
The Court of Appeal varied a High Court order reinstating Ooi Mei Chian to her job in Osram Opto Semiconductors Sdn Bhd and awarded her compensation in lieu of reinstatement instead.PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal has ordered a Penang-based multinational semiconductor company to pay an additional RM854,650 in compensation to a former senior employee, after upholding a High Court decision that she was unfairly dismissed.
A three-member bench chaired by Justice Lee Swee Seng maintained a High Court order that Osram Opto Semiconductors Sdn Bhd pay Ooi Mei Chien 24 months’ back wages totalling RM772,464.
However, the appeals court varied the High Court’s order that she return to work and awarded her RM804,650 as compensation in lieu of reinstatement instead.
“Taking all the delicate and dynamic factors into consideration, this is a fit and proper case for the award of compensation in lieu of reinstatement,” Lee said in a 45-page written judgment posted on the judiciary’s website earlier this week.

The Court of Appeal also ordered Osram to pay Ooi another RM50,000 in punitive damages and RM15,000 in costs.
Lee said the bench appreciated that such an award (punitive damages) would be reserved for those egregious cases where the conduct has been high-handed and reprehensible.
Also on the panel which heard the appeal last September were Justices Supang Lian and Ahmad Zaidi Ibrahim.
Ooi, 57, is appealing the decision to the Federal Court.
Dismissing the company’s appeal from a finding that Ooi had been dismissed without just cause or excuse, Lee said:
“We are not inclined to disturb it having regard to the fact that this was a retrenchment exercise that resulted in the respondent (Ooi) alone being singled out for retrenchment when the reasons have been found to be wanting.”
He said the High Court must have found the actions of the company in presenting a high-powered restructuring scheme to be nothing more than “optics” but lacking in substance and sincerity.
According to the facts of the case, Ooi had served Osram, a premium supplier of LED lighting products, for 24 years.
She was head of its treasury and commercial administration services, drawing a monthly salary of RM32,186.
In seeking to justify Ooi’s retrenchment, Osram said it had outsourced its accounting and treasury function to a global shared services organisation (GSS), rendering her role in the company redundant.
However, Ooi contended that only some of her functions had been taken over, and that her services were still needed.
The Industrial Court in 2019 disagreed, found Ooi’s termination on Sept 30, 2015 to be fair and her redundancy package reasonable.
In 2021, the High Court set aside the award, ordered that Ooi be paid back wages of RM772,463 and reinstated to her position.
In his written grounds, Lee agreed with the High Court that the Industrial Court had fallen into error when upholding the retrenchment.
“The retrenchment exercise was not carried out bona fide but was undertaken for an oblique and collateral purpose of getting rid of  Ooi for reasons best known to it,” he said.
He said the Industrial Court also erred in concluding that the redundancy was justified by the then prevailing economic climate.
“The award, founded on no evidence justifying a retrenchment, ought to be quashed for being irrational and illegal, and so was rightly set aside by the High Court,” he said.
Pravin Kaur Jessy and Azrah Salim represented Ooi while Arumugam Ganapathy and Moses Mathew George appeared for the company. - FMT

---