Employee demands Rs.1bn damages from Fonterra Brands Lanka

An employee attached to Fonterra Brands Lanka (Pvt) Ltd. has sent a Letter of Demand to the company claiming Rs.1000 million as damages for terminating her employment under the false claim of redundancy.

This Letter of Demand has been sent through attorney-at-law G.G. Arulpragasam urging the company to pay the damages within 14 days. It has warned that legal action will be instituted if the money is not paid during this time period.

Attorney-at-law Arulpragasam said his client Shayana Seneviratne joined this company at the age of 24 in the employment category of ‘Assistant Brand Manager’ in terms of the letter of appointment dated June 2011 with effect from 6th July 2011. Thereafter she was promoted to ‘Brand Manager’ with effect from October 2013.

Thereafter, she was promoted to ‘Global Brand Manager’ and took office in Singapore for and on behalf of the company with effect from 1st of April 2016 till August 2017. Once again she was promoted to the position of ‘Category Manager’ of the company with effect from September 2017.

Attorney-at-law Arulpragasam said his client had an excellent service record at the company and was regularly promoted and granted increments and other incentives based on her performance.

“My client was in fact duly promoted every two years and would have been duly promoted in October 2019 to the position of ‘Marketing Manager’ and October 2021 as ‘Associate Director,” the Letter of Demand said.

Attorney-at-law Arulpragasam said he has been instructed by his client to state that the company has unlawfully and maliciously and in breach of duty to his client treated her as redundant with effect from the 20th June 2019.

The Letter of Demand stated that on or around 30th May 2019, Fonterra Brands

Lanka (Pvt) Ltd. lodged a complaint against the employee with the Commissioner of

Labour under Section 02 of the Termination of Employment of Workmen Act under the false claim of redundancy.

It further stated when the inquiry regarding the said complaint was taken up, the company had deliberately made an attempt to fabricate evidence against the employee.