Kuhendran and the Hostile Workplace

“I promise you that AMEX will face justice and the repercussions it deserves…This time I will be doing this for the sake of myself and for my fellow ex-colleagues…” Those were R. Kuhendran’s words: written in his reply to the show‑cause letter that preceded his dismissal. Words the Industrial Court described as “poignant yet painful”.

Kuhendran a/l Rajan, 40, had spent seven years at American Express (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd, rising to senior credit specialist and earning a reputation as one of the top‑performing collections specialists in the region. Yet behind that performance record, his working life had unravelled. He had endured what he described as relentless bullying and harassment by his immediate superior. His grievances went nowhere. When he escalated his complaint to the company’s headquarters in New York, the local company’s response was swift. However it was not an investigation. Within three months, he was issued a show‑cause letter, and weeks later dismissed.

The matter reached the Industrial Court, and on 12 May 2026, the court ruled that the dismissal was without just cause or excuse. Chairman Augustine Anthony, in a 44‑page award, found that the company had retaliated against Kuhendran, shielded the very manager he had complained about, and constructed a case for dismissal so vague that it collapsed under scrutiny. The court awarded him RM153,200 in back wages and compensation.

The Background: Seven Years of Service

Kuhendran joined American Express on 3 November 2014. By all objective measures, he was a strong performer. Yet from 2015 onwards, he began receiving warning letters—five in total. The last was issued in December 2021. He maintained that the warnings were manufactured. They were part of a campaign by his immediate superior to harass and intimidate him. That superior was Vijay a/l K. Jayadevan Nair, whom the Industrial Court’s award refers to as COW2.

The court later found that even though Kuhendran had lodged complaints internally, between 2019 and 2020, the company’s Human Resources and Labour Relations departments did not manage them effectively. No meaningful action was taken against COW2.

The Show‑Cause and Dismissal

The sequence of events was swift. On 3 March 2022, Kuhendran sent a letter of demand to American Express headquarters in New York, seeking intervention over the alleged harassment. Then, on 30 May 2022, the company issued him a show‑cause letter. It listed five new performance‑related issues and misconduct charges: four instances of incorrect actions on client accounts, one failure to respond to a customer email within 24 to 48 hours, and three instances of inaccurate case notations. He was given seven days to respond. He replied on 6 June 2022, answering every allegation and denying that his conduct had caused negative customer experience, brand damage, or financial loss. On 23 June 2022, the company dismissed him with immediate effect.

What the Industrial Court Found

Chairman Anthony’s award did not merely find in Kuhendran’s favour. It dismantled the company’s case, finding that it was built on vague allegations, procedural failures, and retaliation.

The performance allegations were vague and unproven

The court examined each of the five issues listed in the show‑cause letter and found them “vague, confusing and can be interpreted in many ways.” Kuhendran’s answers, both in his written reply and under cross‑examination, were “consistent” and his credibility “unshaken throughout his testimony.” The court “failed to see how the Claimant’s conduct had in any way resulted in negative customer experience, brand damage and potential financial loss”.

The company failed to use a Performance Improvement Plan

If the performance problems were genuinely serious, the court said, “the employee ought to be put on a performance improvement plan (PIP) with clear goals set for the improvement and further monitoring… all of which the Company failed to do”.

The company was nitpicking, not managing

Chairman Augustine Anthony’s language grew sharper as he addressed the company’s treatment of Kuhendran: “The evidence clearly shows that the Company was nitpicking the Claimant’s every action to find fault and in such cases no employee can work safely in any such work environment.”

The bully boss was shielded

The court found that COW2 had been proven “to be a superior who has shown his nature of bullying, harassing and intimidating the Claimant.” It was “foolhardy for the Company to make this very person to be the coach, guide and leader”. Perhaps the most damning sentence in the award: “With clear documented transgression by COW2, this Court wonders why the Company instead of protecting its unfortunate work force, was seen to be shielding the team leader”.

The company’s witnesses were unconvincing and evasive

The four witnesses produced by the company fared no better. Sathiakala a/l Shanmugam (COW1) alleged Kuhendran was a poor performer with a rude and hostile attitude, but the court found Kuhendran’s own evidence far more convincing. Vijay (COW2), the superior accused of bullying, was unconvincing, as was Wong Lai Pei (COW3), the labour relations manager who had issued the show‑cause letter. The company then introduced a fourth witness, Amaleena Syazwanie binti Mohd Hanizam (COW4), who joined only in June 2023—a year after Kuhendran’s dismissal—and whose knowledge came solely from company records. The court described the decision to put forward a witness with no direct knowledge of what had happened as “very disconcerting” and said it should have been avoided. Taken together, the company’s witness evidence did more to expose the weakness of its case than to support it.

Sexually charged language in the workplace

The court did not limit its findings to Kuhendran’s individual case. It noted “alarming use of sexually charged, highly derogatory and demeaning words employed by COW2 to humiliate employees and it is done so brazenly and openly in the Company office messenger system for other employees to see and read.” The company, the court observed, “did not find it necessary to deal with such office harassment and ridicule of employees strictly and firmly thereby permitting a hostile work environment”.

The dismissal was retaliatory

The timing of the show‑cause letter—issued within three months of Kuhendran’s complaint to New York—was not lost on the court. The chairman called it “an irresistible conclusion of a malicious act of retaliation by the Company to shut the Claimant from raising any further complaints… a swift maneuver to do damage control after the Claimant lodged a complaint/demand to the Company’s head office in New York.” He concluded simply: “Malice is all over the Company’s action”.

The Award

Kuhendran’s last‑drawn monthly salary was RM5,600. The court ordered:

• Back wages for 24 months: RM134,400, less a deduction of RM20,000 for post‑dismissal earnings (he had found a new, better‑paying job in August 2022). Net back wages: RM114,400.
• Compensation in lieu of reinstatement: seven months’ salary for seven years of service, totalling RM39,200.
• Total award: RM153,200.

The court ordered that the sum be paid within 30 days, less statutory deductions (if any). Reinstatement was not ordered; Kuhendran is now employed in Canada.

Kuhendran has since filed a separate civil suit in the High Court against American Express (Malaysia), its New York headquarters, and several individuals, alleging that years of workplace bullying, harassment, and retaliation culminated in his wrongful dismissal. Those proceedings are ongoing and are not the subject of the Industrial Court award.

Practical Takeaways

• A PIP is not optional. If performance is genuinely poor, the employee must be placed on a formal improvement plan with measurable goals. The court treated its absence as fatal.
• A complaint is not a performance problem. When an employee raises a grievance, the company’s duty is to investigate it, not to turn the disciplinary lens back on the complainant. Doing the latter is retaliation.
• Protecting a bully can be costly. The company was found to have shielded COW2. That decision cost RM153,200.
• Workplace messages can become evidence. Messages sent on company platforms remain accessible. The court read COW2’s sexually charged and derogatory messages and quoted them. Organisations must enforce standards of communication or risk having those messages read aloud in a tribunal.
• Vague allegations will not survive scrutiny. The court dismissed the company’s performance claims as “vague, confusing and can be interpreted in many ways.” Specificity in performance management is not just good practice; it is a legal shield.
• The employee’s own words can matter. The court was moved enough by Kuhendran’s reply to the show‑cause letter to quote it directly in the award. Employees who document their experiences and respond clearly can influence the outcome—and the written record can carry more weight than the employer’s allegations.

A Closing Thought

Kuhendran wrote his reply to the show‑cause letter not knowing whether anyone in a position of authority would take him seriously. Seven years of service, a string of warnings he said were manufactured, a bully the company protected—and then, finally, a court that saw through it all. His own words, set down in a reply to the very letter that sought to end his career, became part of the record that vindicated him.

For HR professionals and in‑house counsel, the case is a clear, recent reminder that the way an organisation handles a complaint can leave a deeper mark than the complaint itself. The process is the protection—and when the process is used as a weapon, the courts will not look away.