Singapore tribunal orders company to pay Rs 22 lakh for unfair dismissal

A woman in Singapore who was dismissed from her job as an audit manager has been awarded the maximum compensation available under the Employment Claims Tribunals (ECT) after the tribunal ruled that her employer failed to prove allegations of poor performance. The judgment, released on Tuesday, found that the company terminated her employment in a 'sudden and unjustified' manner at the end of her probation period.

The woman joined the company in April 2025 on a six-month probation. When the probation ended, the company informed her that her employment would not be confirmed, citing unsatisfactory performance. She challenged the decision before the ECT, arguing that she had never received any formal or informal warnings about her work and was judged against performance criteria that were never shared with her.

She also claimed that she faced discrimination for not speaking Korean, despite English being the company’s official working language, and that she was retaliated against for raising concerns about proposed changes to the internal audit reporting structure. However, the tribunal dismissed these allegations, stating there was insufficient evidence.

The company maintained that the dismissal was purely performance-related. It told the tribunal that probationary employees were required to achieve an overall performance score of at least 80 per cent and an average competency rating of three out of five across 10 core competencies. According to the company’s assessment, the audit manager scored 71 per cent overall and an average competency rating of 2.4.

Tribunal Magistrate Joel Tan, however, noted that the employer had not demonstrated that these ratings accurately reflected her actual performance. The judgment highlighted that the woman’s supervisor admitted she had not explained the competency rating framework when the employee joined. The supervisor also failed to conduct formal performance reviews as required under the company’s own probation policy.

As a result, the employee was evaluated against expectations that were never clearly communicated. The magistrate observed that she was left to navigate vague qualitative standards without knowing what was required to pass probation. Several of the company’s complaints—such as missing deadlines, failing to follow instructions, and submitting documents with formatting issues—were unsupported by evidence or related to expectations that had never been properly conveyed.

While acknowledging that the employee had room for improvement, Magistrate Tan ruled that it was unfair to terminate her employment based on performance standards that had not been adequately explained. The tribunal concluded that she was wrongfully dismissed and awarded her the maximum compensation under the ECT.

The woman, who earned Singapore Dollar 11,500 per month, received compensation equivalent to three months’ salary, amounting to Singapore Dollar 34,500 (approximately Rs 22 lakh). The identities of both the employee and the company were withheld in the judgment. Both parties represented themselves during hearings held in May and June 2026.

This case underscores the importance of clear communication of performance expectations and adherence to company policies during probation periods. Employers are reminded that vague or uncommunicated standards cannot be used as grounds for termination.