Case Background & Strategy

In a significant Malaysian unfair dismissal case, Heng Hui Chuen v Heineken Malaysia Berhad, NZSK Legal successfully represented Heng Hui Chuen and secured an Industrial Court award of RM893,200.00. The case involved a senior employee who had served Heineken Malaysia Berhad for more than 20 years before being dismissed based on alleged poor performance, Performance Improvement Plans, performance monitoring and alleged failure to meet company expectations.

This case is important for employees and employers in Malaysia because it shows that an employer cannot simply rely on a PIP or poor performance label to justify dismissal. Even when an employee holds a senior management position, the employer must still prove that the dismissal was with just cause or excuse. The Industrial Court will look beyond internal company documents and examine whether the PIP was genuine, whether the performance assessment was fair, whether the employee was properly warned, and whether the alleged poor performance was actually proven.

Heng Hui Chuen had a long employment history with Heineken Malaysia Berhad. She joined the company in 2000 and was promoted several times due to her performance. Her last role was a senior management position as Head of IT Operations. The evidence showed that she had previous positive performance records and had contributed to the company for many years before the company later alleged that her performance had deteriorated.

Heineken Malaysia Berhad alleged that Heng Hui Chuen had performance issues from around 2019 onwards and relied on a series of performance processes, including PIP 1, a performance monitoring period and PIP 2. The company said she failed to improve and therefore could no longer be retained. However, Heng Hui Chuen denied that she was a poor performer and argued that the poor performance allegations were unfair, flawed and affected by changes in management, restructuring, removal of subordinates, changed reporting lines and unreasonable performance expectations.

The Industrial Court carefully examined the full factual background. It considered Heng Hui Chuen’s long service, past performance, restructuring within Heineken Malaysia Berhad, changes in reporting structure, gaps in performance monitoring, and whether the company had properly proven the alleged poor performance. After reviewing the evidence, the court found that Heineken Malaysia Berhad had failed to prove poor performance from 2019 to 2022.

This finding was central to the win. In Malaysian employment law, once an employer dismisses an employee, the burden is on the employer to prove that the dismissal was with just cause or excuse. It is not enough for the employer to say the employee failed a PIP. The employer must prove the poor performance with proper evidence. The Industrial Court found that the company had not discharged that burden.

The court also considered the effect of restructuring. In many companies, employees are placed under new management, given new expectations, moved into different reporting lines, stripped of subordinates, or placed in a reduced role after restructuring. If the employer then labels the employee as a poor performer, the Industrial Court may examine whether the alleged poor performance was genuine or whether it was affected by the employer’s own restructuring decisions.

This case is especially relevant for senior employees in Malaysia who are suddenly placed on a Performance Improvement Plan after years of strong service. A PIP must not be used as a shortcut to remove an employee. It must be a genuine process to help the employee improve. If the PIP is unfair, unclear, inconsistent, unsupported by evidence or used to create a paper trail for termination, the dismissal may be challenged.

At the end of the case, the Industrial Court accepted Heng Hui Chuen’s claim and awarded RM893,200.00. This comprised RM424,270.00 in backwages and RM468,930.00 as compensation in lieu of reinstatement. This is a major employment law win in Malaysia and an important reminder that unfair dismissal cases involving senior employees, PIP and poor performance can result in substantial compensation.

For employees, the lesson is clear. If you are placed on PIP, accused of poor performance, demoted, excluded from meetings, stripped of responsibilities, pressured to resign or terminated after years of service, you should seek legal advice early. Your emails, appraisal records, warning letters, PIP documents, restructuring documents, job scope changes and performance history may become crucial evidence in an Industrial Court claim.

For employers, this case is also a warning. If a company wants to dismiss an employee for poor performance, the process must be fair, properly documented and supported by evidence. The company must show that the employee was warned, given a real opportunity to improve, and still failed to meet reasonable expectations. A PIP should not be treated as a formality or a predetermined route to dismissal.

At NZSK Legal, we handle unfair dismissal claims, constructive dismissal cases, PIP disputes, poor performance termination cases, forced resignation matters, retrenchment disputes, disciplinary inquiry cases and Industrial Court proceedings in Malaysia. We assist employees and employers in assessing the strength of their case, preparing legal strategy, reviewing documents and presenting the matter effectively in court.

This unfair dismissal case against Heineken Malaysia Berhad was successfully handled by Ng, Zainurul, Seke & Khoo, represented by Lawyer Khoo.