In one case, the tribunal ordered a company to pay S$30,000 to a woman who was dismissed during her probationary period. The magistrate found that the employer failed to prove that the employee’s performance was inadequate to justify the termination. The company alleged that the woman had formatting issues in her deliverables and failed to complete a process audit. However, the magistrate determined that the company did not establish that any formatting deficiency existed to a nature or extent that would justify treating it as a performance shortcoming. The employee had testified that she used the provided template and was not informed of specific errors. Regarding the audit assignment, while the magistrate accepted that the employee struggled to engage with the high-level instructions, this shortcoming did not justify the low performance score assigned. The tribunal noted that the company relied on a scoring process it had never disclosed to the employee, and no supervisor criticized the actual quality of her audit work, which was a core performance goal.
Witness testimony from a senior employee with over 20 years of experience stated the woman was “simply not up to expectation” compared to peers who adapted within three to four months. However, this assessment was based largely on feedback rather than direct critique of her output. A human resources officer also testified, but the tribunal concluded the dismissal was wrongful because the standards used for evaluation were not made obvious or clear to the employee at the time.
In a separate ruling, the tribunal dismissed the wrongful dismissal claim of a Public Relations firm director. The director had been terminated after secretly recording an internal company meeting. The magistrate ruled that the act of covertly recording the meeting constituted misconduct warranting dismissal. This decision highlights that employees must adhere to transparency standards regarding the recording of workplace communications, and that privacy breaches or lack of consent in such contexts can serve as valid grounds for immediate termination.
These decisions are significant as they are the first published precedents from the ECT, a specialized body handling employment disputes. They provide clear parameters for both employers and employees: employers must define performance standards clearly and disclose evaluation methods, while employees must avoid actions that breach trust, such as covert recording. The rulings do not create broader statutory changes but offer judicial interpretation on existing employment laws.
The immediate legal consequence for the first claimant is the payment of the S$30,000 compensation. For the second claimant, the dismissal was upheld, leaving no further recourse in the ECT. These published decisions will serve as reference points for future tribunals in Singapore dealing with similar probationary terminations and misconduct allegations.
