KUALA LUMPUR: The Industrial Court has ruled that Taylor's University's decision five years ago to declare two associate professors surplus to requirements based solely on their five-figure salaries was unfair, discriminatory, and biased.
Court chairman Eswary Maree stated that Taylor's should align the criteria used to select staff for retrenchment with its existing employment policies and practices.
"Targeting them based solely on salary overlooks their contributions and may undervalue their loyalty and dedication.
"It could perpetuate age discrimination, as older employees tend to have higher salaries due to their tenure and experience," read the award.
According to an FMT report, Tam Sheh May joined the university as a lecturer in 2012 and rose to the rank of assistant professor where she earned a monthly salary of RM13,372 before being retrenched on Dec 31, 2019, purportedly on grounds of redundancy.
Although she signed her redundancy letter, Tam said she also sought justification for her dismissal in three appeal letters as there was no basis for her redundancy as both the faculty and its school of biosciences were still operational.
She said she had received several promotions and held additional responsibilities throughout her employment.
Tam also challenged her termination, stating she was still teaching, conducting research, and performing administrative and service functions when she received her redundancy notice.
Wong Ching Lee, who joined Taylor's in 2011 and was promoted to associate professor, earning RM14,400 a month, was also retrenched on grounds of redundancy in 2019.
She also disputed her alleged redundancy, saying that her duties continued to exist and were taken over by others.
Wong claimed her dismissal was arbitrary, selective, contrary to notions of equity and good conscience, and amounted to an unfair labour practice.
Taylor's, in its defence, said that the three schools in the faculty were suffering financial losses, with the school of biosciences being the most affected, due to rising costs and lower enrolment.
"This school has been experiencing losses since 2014, which increased exponentially until 2019. Within this school, the Bachelor of Biotechnology programme was the least profitable due to the stagnant student population and high-cost expenditure incurred," the university claimed.
It argued that prompt action was necessary as the performance of the Bachelor of Biotechnology programme affected the school of biosciences and ultimately the university itself.
"The (faculty) decided that it could no longer sustain employees with very high salaries due to the financial position of the school and the programme itself," it said.
Taylor's stated that the cost savings from terminating higher-earning academic staff would significantly reduce costs, leading to fewer staff being released.
Eswary ruled that, based on the totality of the evidence, the terminations of Tam and Wong from employment were without just cause or excuse.
She said Taylor's had failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the retrenchments were done in good faith.
"The selection of the claimants for retrenchment due to redundancy cannot be viewed as showing fair labour practices," she said.
Eswary did not award the claimants compensation instead of reinstatement as Tam had received RM104,970 and Lee RM127,296 in the form of retrenchment benefits, paid at the rate of one month's salary for each year of service.
However, she ordered Taylor's to pay Tam back wages of RM256,742, equivalent to 24 months' salary but subject to a 20 per cent deduction for post-dismissal earnings.
Wong was awarded RM276,480 on the same basis.
The claimants were represented by VK Raj, while Dharmen Sivalingam and Leenalochana Malaipan represented the university.