Johnathan Lee Kui Bao

What happened

The employee was a senior manager at a construction company. He joined in July 2024 and was assigned to a construction project. The employer confirmed him after probation in October 2024, paid him a bonus in December 2024 and increased his salary from January 2025 [6].

In June 2025 he took medical leave and disclosed a mental health condition to the employer. A later medical memorandum certified him fit to work but recommended shorter hours [7]. From 1 July 2025 the employer moved him from the project site to its head office, where he worked regular hours on a tender bid [8].

The tender was submitted in August 2025. The next day the employer handed the employee a letter headed “Cessation of Employment”. The letter referred only to the termination clause in the employer’s regulations, which allowed either side to end the contract on one week’s notice or salary in lieu once the employee had served 26 weeks but less than two years [17]. The employer paid his full salary for the month in place of the one week’s salary in lieu that was due [9], [17]. No reason was given, in the letter or at the meeting [4], [9], [17].

The employee claimed $18,000 in compensation at the Employment Claims Tribunals (the ECT), a figure he kept within its jurisdiction, together with a written apology and an agreed statement that no negative reason for dismissal would be disclosed to future employers [13]-[15]. His case was that he was dismissed because of, or in retaliation for, disclosing his condition [11].

The employer said the termination was contractual, lawful and, under the Tripartite Guidelines on Wrongful Dismissal, presumed not to be wrongful unless the employee proved a wrongful reason [16], [18]. It denied discrimination and said it had supported him after the disclosure by asking for medical information, arranging a meeting, encouraging counselling and honouring his sick leave [23]. It also gave evidence of performance concerns: an incident in April 2025 when he left the site before a materials shortage was resolved, a complaint from the project’s resident engineer, and criticisms of his tender work [22], [24]-[25]. Yet it maintained that the dismissal was “not for any particular reason” and that the performance evidence was advanced only to rebut the discrimination allegation [26]. The two managers who had directed and assessed his tender work were not called as witnesses [744].

What the tribunal decided

Two cautions come first. The grounds of decision run to more than 750 paragraphs. The tribunal said openly that much of its reasoning was obiter, meaning it was not necessary for the result, and that it went further than the case required because parties at the ECT cannot be represented by lawyers, so legal difficulties would otherwise never be argued or appealed [55]-[56]. The published grounds are a revised Version No 2 dated 18 August 2026, and the employer obtained leave to appeal in May 2026 on the basis that the decision raises a question of law [5]. Everything below is a first-instance view which the High Court may vary or reverse.

Paying notice under the contract does not answer the statutory claim. The Employment Act defines “dismiss” to include termination “with or without notice and for cause or otherwise”, so a contractually clean termination is still a dismissal and section 14(2) still applies [4], [94]. Notice on its own “cannot sensibly constitute” a just cause or excuse, and Parliament enacted no presumption that it should [100]. As the tribunal put it, “Section 14(2) imposes an additional statutory restraint upon the employer’s exercise of the power to terminate, and a dismissal which is contractually effective may therefore still lack just cause or excuse” [755]. The employer’s defence, which treated contractual validity as answering the claim, was described as “wholly unstable” [36].

The Tripartite Guidelines must be considered but do not override the Act. The Guidelines are not primary or subsidiary legislation [67]-[68]. The Employment Claims Act requires the ECT to “have regard” to them, which at most makes it mandatory to consider them, not to apply them [70]. Where a proposition in the Guidelines contradicts, narrows or enlarges section 14(2), the ECT must consider it but decline to follow it [87]. On that footing the tribunal held that the Guidelines’ presumption that a dismissal with notice is not wrongful is not a legal presumption, because the statute provides none [133], [135]. This part of the reasoning departs from how the Guidelines are commonly applied, and it is a first-instance view which does not bind other tribunals or the courts.

Who had to prove what. Section 27(2) of the Employment Claims Act shifts the burden to the employer only where the employee was dismissed without notice under section 14(1) (summary dismissal for misconduct after due inquiry) or with notice stated to be on grounds of poor performance or misconduct. Neither applied. A termination by payment of salary in lieu is a termination without notice, and the employer had not invoked section 14(1). The legal burden of proving the dismissal was without just cause or excuse therefore stayed with the employee [654], [732]. He could discharge it with circumstantial evidence drawn from the objective course of his employment. Once his evidence called for an answer, an evidential burden could pass to the employer, but the ultimate risk of non-persuasion remained his [733]. The employer’s silence and the employee’s assertion that he did nothing wrong will not, by themselves, be enough [163].

Failing to prove discrimination does not mean the dismissal was justified. The Guidelines say an employee dismissed with notice and no reason “must substantiate a wrongful reason”. The tribunal held that this changes the object of proof: section 14(2) asks whether a just cause or excuse was absent, not whether the employee can name a bad motive [37], [104]. Treating a failed discrimination case as proof that the dismissal was justified is a logical fallacy [38]. The employee “may establish the absence of just cause or excuse without proving discrimination, retaliation, deprivation of a benefit, or some other positively improper purpose” [456].

What “without just cause or excuse” requires. The employer’s asserted basis must have a sufficient connection with the dismissal, and it must be sufficient in the circumstances to justify it. Proof that some adverse fact about the employee was true does not, without more, establish either [93]. The ECT should ask four questions in order: was there a dismissal; what basis does the employer say was its cause or excuse; did those facts exist and operate at least materially on the decision; and did that proved and operative basis carry enough weight to make dismissal a just response [464]. The employer is allowed a real measure of latitude on operational needs, fit, performance and conduct, provided the material facts existed, played a part and had sufficient weight [468]. A reason first invented after the dismissal cannot become its historical cause [648].

The discrimination claim failed. The sequence of disclosure, reassignment, tender submission and next-day dismissal was capable of raising suspicion [735]. But the tribunal accepted the employer’s evidence that it sought medical information, arranged a meeting, encouraged counselling, honoured medical leave and, when shorter hours were recommended, moved the employee to regular hours at head office. That was a coherent explanation for the reassignment [736]. The laptop and replacement allegations did not support a discriminatory inference [737]. The evidence did not make it more likely than not that the condition or its disclosure caused the dismissal [738].

The dismissal was nonetheless without just cause or excuse. Confirmation, the bonus, the pay rise and the continued assignment of tender work were objective acts by which the employer had treated the employee as suitable and deserving of reward [739]-[740]. There was little contemporaneous material showing that serious concerns had ever been put to him. A senior employee need not always be placed on a formal improvement plan, and the absence of a warning or process “supplied no independent basis for liability”, but it affected the weight of an explanation offered after the event [741]. Cumulatively the record called for an answer [742]. The employer proved one real but confined shortfall, the site incident, and some concerns of uncertain extent [743], [745]. The wider tender criticisms could not be established because the managers who assigned and assessed the work were not called, and the general account given by the employer’s human resources representative could not support an independent assessment [744]-[745]. The employer’s own position that the dismissal was for no particular reason left the operative role of its concerns uncertain [745]. The employee therefore “discharged his burden under s 14(2), though he did so without proving the discriminatory motive upon which he had principally relied” [746].

Remedies. Compensation under the Employment Claims Regulations has two components, loss of income and harm, which must be proved separately [747]. For harm the tribunal selected the maximum base of two months’ salary, because the abrupt and unexplained severance carried a substantial affront and disruption which could be inferred without proof of any psychiatric injury. It expressly did not treat the rejected discrimination allegation or the employee’s pre-existing condition as aggravating factors. The proven site shortfall was a mitigating factor and reduced the award by three-quarters of a month, to $11,437.50 [748]. The tribunal noted that other ECT decisions have used bases ranging from one-fifth of a month to two months [212]. No loss of income was awarded. Evidence of 47 job applications and two interviews showed the search was hard, but did not establish how long the employment would probably have continued or attribute any period of unemployment to this dismissal, and the full month’s salary had already been paid [749]. The apology and agreed statement were refused: after a contested hearing the ECT can only order reinstatement or compensation, and an apology stating that the dismissal was discriminatory would have contradicted the tribunal’s own finding [664], [750]. The total payable was $11,507.50 including $70 in disbursements [751].

Two further obiter points. There is no general duty at common law or under legislation to give a reason for dismissal, and the ECT declined to create one [118], [154]. In the tribunal’s words, “There is no general rule which requires an employer to state a reason whenever it terminates employment with notice, but a reasons-based statutory inquiry remains necessary when a claim is brought” [730]. Separately, the tribunal expressed the view that claims under section 14(2) can only be brought through TADM mediation and the ECT, and that even a claim transferred to the civil courts remains subject to the $20,000 or $30,000 limit [486], [522]. Both points are first-instance views, and the tribunal itself acknowledged that uncertainty remains in aspects of this area of the law [759].

What this means for employers

• Paying salary in lieu under a termination clause explains how the employment ended. It does not answer a section 14(2) claim [734]. If a claim is brought, the employer “must still identify the actual basis of its decision and answer that claim” [729].
• If performance is the real reason, call the people who saw and assessed the work, and produce the contemporaneous records. The employer’s wider tender criticisms could not be established because the project manager and technical director were not called, and a second-hand account from HR could not fill the gap [744]-[745]. Evidence supplied only after the event, or from people who did not observe the events, may carry less weight than records and the testimony of those who made the decision [730].
• Do not confirm, reward and continue to deploy an employee and then assert a serious, settled deficiency without evidence of when it was raised. Confirmation, a bonus, a pay rise and continued assignment of responsible work were treated as objective acts that called for an answer [739]-[742].
• Do not run two inconsistent positions. Saying the dismissal was for no particular reason while advancing performance evidence only to rebut discrimination left the operative role of those concerns uncertain and weakened the answer [745]. Decide what the reason is and evidence it.
• There is no legal duty to give a reason or to run a formal process before dismissal [118], [741]. But the absence of warnings, feedback and records affects the weight the tribunal can give to an explanation offered later [741]. Process is not a precondition; it is the evidence you will need. Supportive handling of a medical disclosure is also evidentially valuable: the employer’s conduct after the disclosure was accepted as a coherent, non-discriminatory explanation for the reassignment [736].

What this means for employees

• You do not have to prove discrimination or another wrongful reason to succeed under section 14(2). The employee here lost on discrimination and still won on the objective record [746]. Do not assume that failing to prove a particular motive ends the inquiry [727].
• If you were dismissed with salary in lieu and no reason, the burden of proof is on you [732]. You can meet it circumstantially: confirmation after probation, appraisals, bonuses, salary increases, the responsible work you were still being given, the absence of recorded concerns, the timing of events and inconsistencies in the employer’s account [727], [733].
• Act quickly. A wrongful dismissal dispute must be submitted for mediation within one month of dismissal, and the ECT claim must be lodged within four weeks after the claim referral certificate is issued [651], [726]. The claim limit is $20,000, or $30,000 with union or Tripartite Mediation Framework assistance [652]. Our guide to TADM and the Employment Claims Tribunals explains each step.
• Prove loss of income properly or expect nothing under that head. Loss of income and harm are separate components with separate proof requirements [747]. Evidence that the job search was hard is not the same as evidence of how long the employment would have continued or that the dismissal caused a particular period of unemployment [749].
• The ECT cannot order an apology, an agreed reference or a statement about the reasons for termination after a contested hearing. Those terms can only be obtained by agreement at mediation or in a settlement [664], [750]. Reinstatement is rarely ordered and, if refused, may leave a successful claimant with no remedy at all, which is a substantial reason to prefer compensation [180], [184].

---

Frequently asked questions

Can my employer terminate me with one week’s pay in lieu of notice and no reason in Singapore?

Contractually, yes. If your contract allows termination on notice or salary in lieu, the employer may end the employment that way and need not give a reason [118], [730]. But that is a separate question from whether the dismissal was without just cause or excuse under section 14(2) of the Employment Act. In [2026] SGECT 9 the tribunal held that a contractually effective dismissal may still lack just cause or excuse [755]. If you are a manager or executive dismissed with notice or salary in lieu, you need at least six months’ service to bring the claim [634]. You must submit the dispute to TADM within one month of dismissal.

Do I have to prove discrimination to win a wrongful dismissal claim at the ECT?

Not according to this decision. The tribunal held that section 14(2) asks whether a just cause or excuse was absent, not whether you can prove a positively wrongful motive such as discrimination [37], [104], [456]. The employee in [2026] SGECT 9 alleged he was dismissed for disclosing a mental health condition. That allegation failed on the evidence [738]. He still succeeded because his confirmation, bonus, pay rise and continued responsible work called for an answer, and the employer could not prove a sufficient reason [742]-[746]. The tribunal accepted that this departs from the way the Tripartite Guidelines are worded, and the employer has leave to appeal [5].

Does an employer have to give a warning or performance improvement plan before terminating a manager?

No. Nothing in section 14(2) creates a general requirement of a hearing, warning, consultation or improvement plan for every dismissal [569]. The tribunal accepted that a senior employee need not always be placed on a formal plan, and the absence of a warning or process gave no independent basis for liability [741]. Process matters evidentially. A warning or investigation may strengthen the employer’s account of its reason, while its absence may weaken an allegation that was contestable or easily answered [469]. Here the lack of contemporaneous records reduced the weight of the performance explanation offered after the event [741].

Can the ECT order my employer to give me an apology or a reference?

No. After a contested hearing, the ECT’s remedies for a section 14(2) claim are confined to reinstatement or compensation. It cannot compel an apology, an agreed reference, a correction of records or a declaration [664]. In [2026] SGECT 9 the requests for a written apology and an agreed statement that no negative reason would be disclosed to future employers were refused for want of power [750]. Terms of that kind can form part of a settlement reached at mediation or by agreement, so if they matter to you, raise them at the TADM stage rather than at the hearing [728].

This decision is one of several 2026 Employment Claims Tribunals decisions discussed in Wrongful Dismissal in Singapore: What the Employment Claims Tribunals Decided in 2026.

This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. It discusses a decision of the Employment Claims Tribunals as reported at the citation given; the parties are anonymised in the published grounds and are referred to here only as the employee and the employer. The law stated is as at September 2026.