Air Asia ordered to pay ex-pilot RM268,620 for constructive dismissal

Share to help stimulate good governance, ensure future of people & M’sia

No News Is Bad News

Air Asia ordered to pay ex-pilot RM268,620 for constructive dismissal

KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 12, 2024: Not only had Air Asia not made refunds to its customers, it has now been ordered by the Industrial Court to pay an ex-pilot RM268,620 for constructive dismissal.

So, is Air Asia a fair and good employer? Is it also providing competent and fair services to customers when it uses loopholes and weaknesses not to make refunds to air passengers?

No News Is Bad News reproduces below the court proceedings:

Malaysia

Court orders Air Asia to pay ex-pilot RM 268,620 for constructive dismissal 

The pilot, who began working with the airline in July 2018, resigned after being furloughed in 2022 due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

Updated 2 hours ago · Published on 12 Nov 2024 10:27AM

 

AIR ASIA Bhd has been ordered to pay RM 268,620 in compensation and back wages to its former pilot for constructive dismissal, reported the New Straits Times.

Industrial Court chairman S. Vanithamany handed down the award to Eric Koh Kim Lai on Nov 7.

Koh, who began working with the airline in July 2018, resigned after being furloughed in 2022 due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

According to NST, during this time, the airline cut Koh's basic salary by 75 per cent, attributing the reduction to grounded flights caused by border restrictions.

The company argued that the claimant had tendered his resignation voluntarily.

The court ruled that putting an employee on unpaid leave and salary reduction until an indefinite period is not a fair labour practice.

"The claimant had cooperated and tolerated the unpaid leaves and 75 per cent reduction in salary, in addition, he was also not paid his salary for 11 months which the company admitted from June 2020.

"The claimant did not decide to leave the employment for any other reason but for those stated above.

"Employment is part of the livelihood for a person. If an employee decides to leave the company for unfair treatment, oppression or victimisation, that employee needs time to consider his decision as it might affect his livelihood and commitment," she said.

According to NST, Vanithamany said Koh resigned after two weeks from the date the town hall meeting was held.

She said the company argued that the reason the claimant left the company was because he had already secured another job.

"The claimant had secured another job for his livelihood and there is nothing wrong with it," she added. - November 12, 2024