Court finds Taylor University's dismissal of academics unfair, discriminatory

KUALA LUMPUR: The Industrial Tribunal has ruled that Taylor 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.

Tribunal chairman Eswary Maree said Taylor should align the criteria used to select staff for redundancy with its existing employment policies and practices.

“Targeting them solely on the basis of their salary overlooks their contributions and may underestimate their loyalty and dedication.

“This could perpetuate age discrimination, as older employees tend to have higher salaries due to their seniority and experience,” the award reads.

According to a report by FMT, 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 she was dismissed on Dec 31, 2019, allegedly due to redundancy.

Although she signed her termination letter, Tam said she also sought to justify her termination in three appeal letters as there was no basis for her dismissal since the faculty and its school of biosciences were still operational.

She said she received several promotions and took on additional responsibilities throughout her employment.

Tam also contested her termination, saying she was still teaching, conducting research and performing administrative and service duties when she received her termination notice.

Wong Ching Lee, who joined Taylor in 2011 and was promoted to associate professor, earning RM14,400 per month, was also dismissed due to retrenchment in 2019.

She also contested her alleged dismissal, saying her duties continued to exist and were being taken over by others.

Wong claimed that his dismissal was arbitrary, selective, contrary to the notions of fairness and good conscience, and constituted an unfair labor practice.

Taylor, in his defense, said all three of the college’s schools were suffering financial losses, with the biosciences school being hit hardest, due to rising costs and declining enrollment.

“This school has been experiencing losses since 2014, which have increased exponentially until 2019. Within this school, the bachelor’s degree program in biotechnology was the least profitable due to the stagnation of the student population and the high expenses incurred,” the university said.

She argued that swift action was needed given that the results of the biotechnology bachelor’s degree program affected the bioscience school and, ultimately, the university itself.

“The faculty decided that they could no longer hire employees at very high salaries because of the financial situation of the school and the program itself,” he said.

Taylor said the savings from laying off the highest-paid university staff would significantly reduce costs, leading to fewer staff being made redundant.

Eswary ruled that, based on all the evidence, Tam and Wong’s dismissals were without just cause or excuse.

She said Taylor had failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the dismissals were made in good faith.

“The selection of job seekers for redundancy cannot be considered as evidence of fair labour practices,” she said.

Eswary did not award the claimants compensation in lieu of reinstatement because Tam had received RM104,970 and Lee RM127,296 in severance pay, paid at the rate of one month’s salary for each year of service.

However, she ordered Taylor to pay Tam back pay of RM256,742, equivalent to 24 months’ salary, but subject to a 20% deduction for post-dismissal earnings.

Wong received RM276,480 on the same basis.

The applicants were represented by VK Raj, while Dharmen Sivalingam and Leenalochana Malaipan represented the university.