Singapore Employment Claims Tribunals Decisions Provide Guidance on Wrongful Dismissal Claims

Four recent decisions by Singapore Employment Claims Tribunals offer practical guidance on disputes arising out of statutory wrongful dismissal claims, including poor-performance dismissals, jurisdictional thresholds, no-reason terminations, and involuntary resignation arising from medical accommodation issues.

Following the first wave of published Employment Claims Tribunals (ECT) decisions, the ECT published four further decisions addressing statutory wrongful dismissal and related jurisdictional issues: the dismissal of a probationary employee for alleged poor performance in JIW v JIX [2026] SGECT 7, the “relevant employee” threshold for statutory wrongful dismissal claims in JJC v JJD [2026] SGECT 8, no-reason termination with salary in lieu of notice in JJF v JJG [2026] SGECT 9, and involuntary resignation arising from medical accommodation issues in JJH v JJI [2026] SGECT 10.

JIW V JIX [2026] SGECT 7: WRONGFUL DISMISSAL FOR POOR PERFORMANCE DURING PROBATION

Summary

The claimant was employed as a regional internal control audit manager, subject to a probationary period of six months. Shortly before the end of probation, the employer informed her that her performance had not met the standards required for confirmation and terminated her employment with two weeks’ written notice.

The employee brought a statutory wrongful dismissal claim in the ECT under section 14(2) of the Employment Act 1968 (the Act), arguing that

• the employer had not substantiated its allegations of poor performance and that the probation evaluation process had in any event been procedurally deficient;
• her dismissal was materially connected to her inability to read, speak, write, or understand Korean, which was frequently used for key work-related discussions and decision-making among senior colleagues; and
• her dismissal was retaliatory because of her whistleblowing when she had raised concerns about a proposed internal restructuring.

The employer’s position was that the dismissal was based solely on performance, as recorded in the probation evaluation form, and that the evaluation reflected clear and pre-set targets and goals that had been duly communicated to the employee.

The ECT allowed the wrongful dismissal claim on the basis that the employer had not proved that the employee fell below its suitability standards in a manner that constituted just cause or excuse for dismissal. As regards the discrimination and whistleblowing grounds, the tribunal found that these were not made out on the facts.

The employee was awarded compensation by reference to the extended probationary period she would likely have served but for the wrongful dismissal. Although the tribunal assessed her loss of income at three months’ gross pay, this exceeded the ECT claim limit, so the award was capped at the maximum permissible sum of SGD 30,000.

Key Takeaways

First, regardless of whether an employee is on probation, employers must be able to prove the stated poor performance ground for dismissal. The ECT accepted that employers have latitude to reasonably calibrate the suitability standard that each position in the organisation requires and that the tribunal should not sit as a “superior manager, ready to second-guess every such determination.” However, where an employer relies on poor performance, the employer bears the burden of proving that allegation, and it must be able to show not only that the employee failed an aggregate score or rating threshold, but that the underlying scores and ratings were justified.

Second, an employer who has not made its performance standards clear to the employee cannot then rely on an employee’s non-conformity with those standards as evidence of unsuitability or poor performance. On the facts in JIW v JIX, the ECT was not satisfied that the employer had clearly explained what a passing rating required for qualitative competencies, conducted the periodic documented reviews required by its own probation process, or recorded adequate justification for the ratings assigned. The tribunal thus found that the employer did not implement its probation management process in the way that it was designed. This underscores the importance for employers to ensure that it has in place properly defined performance standards and processes that are communicated to its employees and that are followed through and supported by documentation.

Third, language ability can form the basis of discriminatory treatment in the workplace. This proposition was accepted in principle by the ECT in JIW v JIX. The tribunal’s comment is significant in light of the upcoming Workplace Fairness Act 2025 (WFA), which is currently slated to come into force in end-2027 and will treat language ability as one of the protected characteristics for statutory workplace discrimination claims. Under the WFA, adverse employment decisions (including hiring, performance review, training, promotion, and dismissal decisions) must not be made on the basis of a protected characteristic. Employers should therefore be careful that workplace language requirements, preferences, or practices are tied to genuine business or role requirements, and that no adverse employment decision is made because of an employee’s language ability unless it can be objectively justified.

JJC V JJD [2026] SGECT 8: “RELEVANT EMPLOYEE” REQUIREMENT FOR WRONGFUL DISMISSAL CLAIMS

Summary

The claimant was employed as a manager from 28 April 2025 and was terminated on 24 October 2025, after less than six months’ service. The termination letter stated that he would be paid salary in lieu of notice (SILON), and the SILON was paid on 31 October 2025, after he had submitted a mediation request at the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) on 27 October 2025. A TADM mediation request is a prerequisite to the filing of an ECT claim. The claimant argued that, because he had not yet been paid SILON when he lodged the mediation request, he should be treated as “an employee employed in a managerial or an executive position who is dismissed without notice and without salary in lieu of such notice” under section 14(2A)(b) of the Act, and therefore as a “relevant employee” entitled to bring a wrongful dismissal claim under section 14(2) of the Act.

The ECT dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction. It held that the claimant was employed in a managerial position, had served for less than six months, and had been dismissed without notice but with SILON. He therefore did not fall within any of the statutory categories of “relevant employee” under section 14(2A) of the Act.

Key Takeaways

This serves as a reminder that only a “relevant employee” as defined in section 14(2A) of the Act can bring a statutory wrongful dismissal claim under section 14(2) if the Act.

A “relevant employee” under section 14(2A) of the Act refers to

• an employee employed in a managerial or an executive position (a) who is dismissed with notice; or (b) who is dismissed without notice but receives payment of any salary in lieu of notice, after having served that employer for at least six months in any position (whether or not a managerial or an executive position);
• an employee employed in a managerial or an executive position who is dismissed without notice and without salary in lieu of such notice; or
• an employee not employed in a managerial or an executive position.

Section 22(7) of the Employment Claims Act 2016 (ECA) provides that where the tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine a claim, which applies to a case where the claimant is not eligible to bring a statutory wrongful dismissal claim, the claim must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Further, the assessment of whether the claimant is a “relevant employee” is not limited and/or confined to the date that the TADM mediation request is filed. On the contrary, the tribunal in JJC v JJD found that it would be artificial to make a finding of fact that the claimant was terminated without SILON, when he had received his SILON in full and accepted such full payment of his SILON by 31 October 2025.

Additionally, a delay in paying SILON may not convert a dismissal with SILON into a dismissal without SILON for jurisdictional purposes but may give rise to a separate claim for unpaid if SILON remains unpaid. On the facts in JJC v JJD, the employer had committed in writing to paying SILON, the claimant knew that this was the employer’s stated mode of termination, and SILON was paid before the claim referral certificate was issued and before the ECT claim was filed. The ECT also observed that a failure to pay SILON within three days under section 22 of the Act would not, by itself, mean that the employee was dismissed without SILON under section 14(2A) of the Act, although it may give rise to a separate specified statutory dispute under the ECA.

JJF V JJG [2026] SGECT 9: NO-REASON TERMINATION WITH SALARY IN LIEU OF NOTICE AMOUNTING TO WRONGFUL DISMISSAL

Summary

The claimant was employed as a senior construction manager and was dismissed under an express contractual termination clause by the payment of salary in lieu of notice. No reason was given, whether in the dismissal letter or at the meeting where the decision was communicated.

The claimant brought an ECT claim against the employer for wrongful dismissal “without just cause or excuse” under section 14(2) of the Act. The claimant alleged that the dismissal was “without just cause or excuse” because it was linked to his disclosure of a mental health condition and amounted to discrimination or retaliation. The employer maintained that the termination was contractually valid and, in any event, supported by business, suitability, and operational considerations.

The ECT found that the evidence did not make it more likely than not that the claimant’s condition or its disclosure caused the dismissal and therefore rejected the claimant’s positive case of discrimination and retaliation. However, looking at the evidence as a whole, the tribunal nonetheless allowed the wrongful dismissal claim, having found on the balance of probabilities that there was an “absence of a sufficiently established, operative, and just cause or excuse” for the dismissal.

The claimant was awarded compensation with the maximum base of two months’ salary “because the abrupt and unexplained severance, viewed against the course of employment […], carried a substantial affront and disruption which could properly be inferred without proof of a recognised psychiatric injury” less a reduction of 0.75 month’s salary for a “limited instance of poor performance which contributed to [the employer’s] decision [to terminate].” The tribunal made no award for loss of income, and declined the non-monetary relief sought.

The employer has obtained leave to appeal under section 23 of the ECA on the basis that the ECT decision gives rise to a question of law.

Key Takeaways

Contractual compliance does not necessarily answer a statutory wrongful dismissal claim. The ECT held in JJF v JJG that section 14(2) of the Act regulates the basis upon which the employer exercises the power to terminate by imposing a statutory duty to refrain from dismissing an employee “without just cause or excuse.” The employer nevertheless retains the legal power to bring the relationship to an end, so that a dismissal may be legally effective even though its exercise contravenes that statutory duty. Where the employer terminates “without just cause or excuse,” the ECA gives the employee the means to seek reinstatement or compensation, notwithstanding that the dismissal has already taken effect.

The statutory inquiry under section 14(2) assesses:

• whether the employee was dismissed within the applicable statutory meaning;
• what basis the employer says constituted cause or excuse;
• whether the facts comprising that basis existed and operated, at least materially, upon the decision to dismiss; and
• whether the proved and operative basis carried sufficient weight, in the employment and industrial setting, to make dismissal a just response.

This ECT decision suggests that employers who terminate without giving reasons should still be ready to explain the actual basis if challenged at the ECT. While section 14(2) of the Act imposes no general requirement that the employer communicate its reason at the time of dismissal, the tribunal noted that “a contemporaneous explanation may, however, identify what actually caused the decision, define a factual case which can be tested, and expose inconsistency if a materially different account emerges only in the proceedings.”

Otherwise, if the employer later relies upon misconduct, poor performance, redundancy, operational requirements, or suitability, it should be prepared to place before the mediator or the ECT the contemporaneous material and witnesses capable of showing what the concern was, whether it actually bore upon the decision, and why it justified dismissal. High-level assertions, accounts supplied only after the event, or evidence from persons who did not directly observe the material events may carry less weight than contemporaneous records and the testimony of those who made or informed the decision.

Further, an employee need not prove the alleged discrimination or another positively wrongful motive to succeed in a wrongful termination claim for a dismissal with no stated reason. While the employee may bear the legal burden of proving that the dismissal was without just cause or excuse, such burden may be discharged through circumstantial evidence (for example, a satisfactory record, recent confirmation or reward, continued deployment, the absence of contemporaneous concern, inconsistent explanations, or withheld evidence). An evidential burden may then fall upon the employer while the legal burden remains with the employee.

The ECT has no power to order nonmonetary relief for a wrongful dismissal claim beyond the statutory remedies of reinstatement or compensation under section 14(3) of the Act and the ECA. On the facts in JJF v JJG, the tribunal declined the two forms of non-monetary relief sought, namely, a written apology “from the Managing Director of [the employer], stating that the dismissal was wrongful and discriminatory, and expressing regret for the harm caused” and “[a] mutually agreed upon statement that the termination was without prejudice … and [that] no negative reasons for dismissal (eg, poor performance) [would be] disclosed to future employers.” The tribunal noted, however, that “an apology, reference, or agreed statement could have formed part of a consensual resolution.”

JJH V JJI [2026] SGECT 10: INVOLUNTARY RESIGNATION IN CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THERE WAS A LACK OF MEDICAL ACCOMMODATION

Summary

The claimant had worked for an international school as an administrative assistant in its music department since 2008. After being diagnosed with stage 3 nasopharyngeal cancer and undergoing chemotherapy and radiotherapy, she was certified fit to return to work, but with continuing side effects including fatigue, joint pain, reduced hand strength, and the need for light-duty accommodations and rehabilitation.

The dispute arose from the employer’s handling of her return-to-work arrangements, including its refusal to accommodate working from home during term time, its insistence on particular medical documentation, and its restrictions around therapy attendance. The claimant resigned after several months.

At the ECT, the claimant alleged that the employer’s unwillingness to reasonably accommodate her medical needs amounted to breaches of two implied terms of her contract of employment: the duty to take reasonable care of the health and safety of employees, and the duty of mutual trust and confidence. These breaches, she contended, left her with no real choice but to resign, such that she was properly to be regarded as having been dismissed for the purposes of her claim under section 14(2) of the Act.

The ECT found that the claimant had been dismissed without just cause or excuse. The claimant was awarded the full SGD 20,000 claimed, comprising SGD 15,240—being three months’ salary for loss of income—and SGD 4,760 for harm being two months’ salary with an upward adjustment of 50% on account of the employer’s breach of its duty to take reasonable care of the claimant’s health and safety that resulted in a deterioration of her health (reduced on account of the monetary limit of the tribunal’s jurisdiction in this case).

Key Takeaways

A resignation may be treated at law as a constructive dismissal giving rise to a wrongful dismissal claim under section 14(2) of the Act based on the statutory definition of “dismiss” under section 2(1) of the Act. This includes “the resignation of an employee if the employee can show, on a balance of probabilities, that the employee did not resign voluntarily but was forced to do so because of any conduct or omission, or course of conduct or omissions, engaged in by the employer.” On the facts in JJH v JJI, the ECT held that the employer’s persistent failure of duty placed the claimant in the constrained position of choosing between remaining employed at the risk of further deterioration to her health and resigning to protect her health. The claimant was reasonable in choosing her health over her employment and therefore did not resign voluntarily but was forced to do so.

Employers should take note of two implied duties owed to its employees:

• Implied duty to take reasonable care of the health and safety of employees: This requires as a starting point, that the employer reasonably investigates, considers, and responds to matters of health and safety drawn to its attention. The duty is not uniform in its practical content and varies with the circumstances of the individual employee.
• Implied duty of mutual trust and confidence: This requires that neither employer nor employee shall without reasonable and proper cause, conduct itself in a manner calculated and likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of confidence and trust between employer and employee.

The ECT in JJH v JJI held that the employer fell short of its duty to take reasonable care because it was fixated on the form of the medical documentation, failed to engage with the substance of medical advice from three healthcare professionals (who had each recommended some form of accommodation in light of the claimant’s condition), and did not genuinely consider or discuss the claimant’s concerns and explore practical alternatives. The employer’s conduct thus sent the message that the claimant’s medical needs and vulnerabilities were not to be taken seriously, and that the employer was not willing to discharge its duty to take reasonable care of her health and safety. An employer’s fundamental breach of its said duty, as is the case here, would have the effect of undermining the trust and confidence upon which the employment relationship depends and thus constitutes a breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence.

Dismissal on the ground of an employee’s medical condition and needs may, in principle, constitute just cause or excuse, but it must be justified on the facts. What matters are the approach an employer takes, and the considerations it brings to bear, when navigating the question of how to respond to an employee with a medical condition and needs.

The ECT observed in JJH v JJI that employers should conduct a reasonable inquiry into the relevant considerations (which includes the actual state of the employee’s medical condition and its likely duration, the effect of that condition on the employee’s ability to perform her role, the employer’s operational requirements, the availability of alternative roles or arrangements suited to the employee’s condition, and whether adjustments or accommodations can reasonably be made) before any decision is made and that the employee’s views should also be consulted. This will allow an ordinarily prudent employer to properly decide, on the evidence, whether the employee can satisfactorily perform his or her duties within a reasonable time; and if not, whether there are alternative arrangements available, or reasonable adjustments or accommodations that can be made, or whether dismissal is warranted in the circumstances.

In this case, the employer’s conduct fell short because it failed to genuinely consult the claimant, declined to engage with the substance of the available medical advice, and acted with haste where the uncertainty of recovery called for patience and continued engagement.

CONCLUSION

The recent slate of ECT decisions spotlights how the statutory employment claims may be framed and defended in the ECT and are to be distinguished from civil claims in the Singapore courts.

The usual cautions on ECT decisions still apply. ECT decisions are first-instance tribunal decisions. Appeals to the General Division of the High Court are available only on a question of law or on the ground that the claim was outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction, and only with leave or permission; appellate guidance may therefore refine or take a different view of points emerging from the published ECT decisions (which remains to be seen for the case of JJF v JJG where the employer was granted leave to appeal). It also remains to be seen whether future ECT decisions will apply these early published decisions consistently or distinguish them on their facts.