Before You Dismiss: An Employer’s Checklist Drawn from the 2026 Employment Claims Tribunals Decisions

Why these decisions matter

Singapore employment disputes within the statutory limit that are not resolved at the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) are decided in the Employment Claims Tribunals (the ECT). The tribunal can award up to $20,000, or $30,000 where the mediation was union-assisted or under the Tripartite Mediation Framework. Parties are not represented by lawyers at the hearing, so an employer’s defence is only as good as the documents and witnesses it brings. The 2026 grounds of decision discussed here give unusually detailed reasoning, and several set out step by step what the tribunal expected the employer to have done. Two cautions apply. All nine are first-instance decisions; in two of them the employer has sought or obtained leave to appeal, and the published grounds of the others do not record whether an appeal has been brought. And the checks below describe the decisions discussed here, not every ECT decision.

The checklist

1. If misconduct is the real reason, hold a due inquiry first, even if you will pay notice, and allege only what you can prove.
2. Do not assume that notice pay and a letter giving no reason will end the matter.
3. Keep first-hand records, and be ready to call the people who made the decision.
4. Engage with the substance of medical advice; do not let a policy override the duty of care.
5. In a redundancy, write the business case first, notify the Ministry of Manpower on time and see redeployment through.
6. At retirement age, offer re-employment for at least a year, and give notice if the employment is to end.
7. Keep the attendance records section 95 of the Employment Act requires, and never deny that they exist.
8. Write pay plans precisely; a committee clause cannot keep a dispute out of the tribunal.
9. Recover staff loans within the one-quarter cap.
10. Check whether the employee can bring a claim at all, and pay salary in lieu of notice promptly.

1. Hold a due inquiry when misconduct is the real reason, and prove what you allege

In [2026] SGECT 1 a financial-sector employer held a committee inquiry into an employee’s medical benefits claims, then dismissed her with three months’ notice by a letter recording intentional misconduct involving dishonesty [30]-[31]. The tribunal held that the “due inquiry” requirement in section 14(1) of the Employment Act attaches to the ground of misconduct, not to summary dismissal, so paying notice does not switch it off [67]-[68], [79(e)]. The inquiry was adequate [83]-[87], yet the employer lost. Because the letter stated reasons, the employer had to prove them, including the state of mind alleged [91]; “it is not enough to show a bare breach of policy” [73]. Dishonesty was not proved [92]-[98], and the negligence that was proved did not justify dismissal when colleagues with comparable claim patterns were warned or had bonuses reduced [100]. The award was $17,332 [112]. The grounds contain a long annex the tribunal described as largely obiter, meaning not necessary to the decision [10], and the employer has applied for leave to appeal [8].

2. Notice pay and a letter giving no reason do not close the question

In [2026] SGECT 9 a construction company dismissed a senior manager the day after he submitted a tender, by a letter that cited only the termination clause and gave no reason, and paid a month’s salary in place of the one week’s salary in lieu due [9], [17]. The tribunal held that a contractually effective dismissal may still lack just cause or excuse under section 14(2) of the Employment Act [755]. The employee bore the burden of proof [732], but confirmation after probation, a bonus, a pay rise and continued responsible work called for an answer [739]-[742]. The wider performance criticisms could not be established because the managers who assessed the work were not called [744]-[745], and the employer’s position that the dismissal was for no particular reason left the operative role of its concerns uncertain [745]. He was awarded $11,437.50 for harm [748]. Four cautions apply. The discrimination claim failed on the facts [738]; much of the reasoning is, on the tribunal’s own account, obiter [55]-[56]; the published grounds are a revised Version No 2; and the employer has leave to appeal [5]. There is no legal duty to give a reason [118], [730], but once a claim is brought the employer “must still identify the actual basis of its decision and answer that claim” [729].

3. Keep first-hand records and call the people who decided

Three decisions comment on who gave evidence. In [2026] SGECT 9 the wider tender criticisms could not be established because the managers who assessed the work were not called, and a general account from the employer’s human resources representative could not fill the gap [744]-[745]. In [2026] SGECT 10 the line manager who agreed the employee’s working arrangements was not called; his account came second-hand through the principal, though the point was immaterial because the arrangement was common ground [28]-[30]. In [2026] SGECT 2 an employer that denied keeping attendance records, when the tribunal found it did, faced an adverse inference [40]. Process is not a legal precondition to dismissal; in [2026] SGECT 9 the absence of a warning or formal process “supplied no independent basis for liability”, but it affected the weight of an explanation offered after the event [741]. In [2026] SGECT 1 the notices, interview notes and committee report were what proved the inquiry had happened [83]-[87].

4. Engage with the substance of medical advice, not its form

In [2026] SGECT 10 an employee at an international school returned from cancer treatment with memoranda from her oncologist and an occupational therapist recommending light duties, short breaks and time for rehabilitation sessions [12], [14]. The employer said her role was ineligible for flexible working under its policy, that she must be on campus five days a week, and that her documents were not a “Light Duties Medical Certificate” [39]-[40]. Its HR team then pressed the school’s appointed doctor on whether his work-from-home recommendation was “mandatory” until he withdrew it [47]-[50], [70]. She resigned. The tribunal treated the resignation as a dismissal, because the employer’s conduct left her with no practical alternative [116], [118], [122], and found it without just cause or excuse [140]. The duty of care carries heightened demands once an employer knows of a medical vulnerability [18]-[19]. “An employer cannot take refuge in the letter of a policy of its own making to escape the reach of its duties” [66], and the form and source of medical opinion are beside the point [83]. No particular outcome was required; even a refusal might have been reasonable after real engagement [87]-[89]. The award was the $20,000 maximum [140].

5. Redundancy: document the business case, notify MOM on time and see redeployment through

In [2026] SGECT 3 a financial-sector employer made its head of human resources redundant, won every claim, and was refused costs. It won because the written business case and at-risk notice pre-dated the employee’s whistleblowing report, so the report could not have caused the decision [41]. Redundancy does not shift the burden of proof under section 27(2) of the Employment Claims Act; the employee had to prove the reason was not genuine, and could not [36], [45]. A reshaped role can be a redundancy [43]. But the employer missed the deadline for notifying the Ministry of Manpower under section 96A of the Employment Act, never sent the promised list of alternative roles, and did not explain why no alternative existed [11]-[12], [73]. These were “criticisms of managerial practice, not findings of legal impropriety” [74], yet they cost the winning employer all its costs and disbursements [73]-[74]. The tribunal also held that section 45 of the Employment Act creates no general statutory right to a retrenchment benefit; entitlement depends on contract or a collective agreement [53], [55]. The published grounds do not record whether the decision has been appealed.

6. Retirement age: offer at least a year, and give notice if the employment is to end

In [2026] SGECT 5 a manager passed the statutory retirement age, then 63, with no re-employment offer [17], [35]. Three months later the employer offered a non-managerial post on a six-month term at roughly 38 per cent less pay, with one week to decide [25]-[30], [45]. He declined, and the next day the employer retired him with immediate effect, without notice or salary in lieu [6]-[7], [33]. The tribunal held that reaching the retirement age gives no power to end the contract at once; the employer had “renounced the performance of its obligations” and owed two months’ salary in lieu under section 16 of the Employment Act [9]-[11], [13]. An offer of less than one year, which the employee has not agreed to, does not meet section 7A(6) of the Retirement and Re-employment Act [39]-[41], [43], so his refusal did not release the employer from paying an employment assistance payment of $14,750 [79], [87]. In observations described as strictly unnecessary, the tribunal criticised a process compressed into about ten days and run by email with a rigid deadline [51], [69], [72]-[73], and suggested a one-year term with an agreed review after six months [76]. The retirement age has been 64 since 1 July 2026 [17].

7. Keep attendance records, and never say they do not exist when they do

In [2026] SGECT 2 a restaurant employee claimed eight months of unpaid overtime. The employer said he had worked none and that no records of hours existed [16]-[18], [41]. His own attendance table, coherently explained and corroborated by photographs of earlier punch cards, shifted the evidential burden [33], [35]-[36]. Section 95(1) of the Employment Act requires records of the hours worked each day by every employee and former employee, and “It would not have been difficult for an honest and responsible employer to discharge that burden” [37]. The tribunal found that records existed and were being withheld, in breach of section 95(2), and under section 21(2) of the Employment Claims Act inferred that they would have been unfavourable to the employer [40]. Doubt about the hours was resolved in the employee’s favour [46], and he received the full $20,000 [47]. The tribunal rejected the explanation that records sat with a related company, finding the two operated as a single integrated entity and that the employer had in fact maintained attendance records [39]-[40]. The statutory baseline for hours, overtime and records is summarised in our employment rights and employer obligations checklist.

8. Write pay plans precisely; a committee clause cannot keep the dispute out of the tribunal

In [2026] SGECT 4 a sales consultant’s commission depended on whether a renewal contract was a “protected” deal. The plan defined neither “protected” nor “deal” [8], [12], and its tables were laid out by product line [7]. Reading the plan objectively, the tribunal treated the executives’ evidence of what they personally understood it to mean as subjective intention carrying little weight [42]-[43], and held that commission was calculated by component [44]. The employer had drafted the plan unilaterally, and “it might be said that, if it had intended otherwise, it had no excuse for its lack of clearer definitions and imprecise drafting” [53]. A clause that the pay plan committee’s interpretation “shall prevail” could operate internally but, so far as it purported to bind the tribunal, was void under section 28 of the Employment Claims Act [22], [57]-[58], [65]. As an alternative ground, the one-year period for a mediation request had not begun while formal internal grievance mechanisms remained open [37], [40]. The published grounds do not record whether the decision has been appealed. The employee recovered $7,030.86 [66].

9. Recover staff loans within the one-quarter cap

In [2026] SGECT 11 a company providing domestic services deducted $500 a month for eight months to recover what it said was a $4,000 loan under a signed loan agreement [5]-[6]. Section 31(5) of the Employment Act caps each instalment at one-quarter of the salary due for the salary period concerned [13]. Each deduction was between about 29 and 33 per cent of salary, calculated on salary as defined in section 2(1), which excludes a travelling allowance [14]. The tribunal held that an instalment above the cap is unlawful in full, not only as to the excess, because compliance with the limit is the condition on which the Act allows an employer to pay itself out of salary [17]-[19], [34]. “A contractual right to be repaid and a statutory right to repay oneself out of salary are different rights” [21]. Written consent does not help [20]. All $4,000 was ordered repaid [34]-[35]. Any underlying debt is not extinguished; if the employer has an enforceable right to repayment it may still demand payment and sue for it, though the tribunal expressed no view on whether such a claim would succeed [12], [33]. The tribunal knew of no earlier decision on the point [15], and this is a first-instance decision.

10. Check whether the employee is a relevant employee, and pay salary in lieu promptly

In [2026] SGECT 8 a technology company dismissed a manager with 5 months and 27 days’ service by a letter promising salary in lieu of notice; the money arrived a week later, after he had lodged a mediation request at TADM [2]-[3]. Under section 14(2A) of the Employment Act, a manager or executive dismissed with notice, or without notice but with salary in lieu, needs six months’ service to bring a wrongful dismissal claim [16], [23]. The employee argued that his status was fixed at the date of his TADM request, when he had not been paid. The tribunal rejected that reading: an employee who filed on the day of the letter would qualify even if paid the next day, which “could not have been an outcome that Parliament had intended” [31(g)]. The letter had committed the employer to notice pay, payment was made and accepted before the claim was filed, and the claim was dismissed for want of jurisdiction [34], [39]. That is not a finding that the dismissal was fair [41]. Say in the letter exactly how the employment is ending [34(a)]-[34(b)], and pay within the three days section 22 of the Employment Act requires; in the tribunal’s view a late payment is a separate statutory dispute [38].

What this means for employers

• Settle the reason before the letter is drafted, then stay consistent. Running two positions left the operative role of the employer’s concerns uncertain in [2026] SGECT 9 [745]. A reason first invented after the dismissal cannot become its historical cause [648] (from the general part of the judgment, subject to the cautions in item 2).
• Every word in the letter is a word you may have to prove. “Dishonesty” or “intentional” means proving that state of mind: [2026] SGECT 1 at [73], [91]. A lesser wrong helps only if it was fairly put to the employee and fits the letter’s account [75], [79(k)].
• Consult before you decide, not after. The employer in [2026] SGECT 10 was already entrenched at the first meeting and in breach at that point [90]. In [2026] SGECT 5 a take-it-or-leave-it offer, a refused extension during medical leave and a premature internal announcement counted against the process [69], [72], [74].
• Diarise statutory deadlines and keep proof. The retrenchment notification in [2026] SGECT 3 [73] and the re-employment offer due before the retirement age in [2026] SGECT 5 [36] were each missed, and each had a cost; the late salary in lieu in [2026] SGECT 8 would have founded a separate claim under section 22 [38].
• Winning is not the same as recovering costs. The employer in [2026] SGECT 3 succeeded on every claim and was still refused costs and disbursements [73]-[74]. An employer that has not addressed its mind to the employment assistance payment may find the tribunal readier to apply the 3.5-month yardstick, though the tribunal expressed no concluded view: [2026] SGECT 5 at [84], [86]-[87].

What this means for employees

• If the letter alleges misconduct, the employer must prove it. A state of mind such as dishonesty cannot be assumed from a pattern: [2026] SGECT 1 at [73], [91]-[93]. You can succeed even if you breached a policy, if dismissal rather than a warning was disproportionate [99]-[101].
• A letter with no reason and notice pay does not end your claim. On the reasoning in [2026] SGECT 9 you carry the legal burden throughout, but confirmation, bonuses, pay rises and continued responsible work can be enough to call for an answer from the employer, and in that case, once the employer’s answer was found wanting, the burden was discharged [732]-[733], [739]-[742], [746]. The employer has leave to appeal, so the decision may be varied [5].
• A resignation can be a dismissal. You must show that the employer’s conduct left you with no practical alternative but to resign, judged objectively but in light of your circumstances: [2026] SGECT 10 at [111], [116]. A subjective feeling of having no choice is not enough [116]-[117].
• Check that you can claim at all, and act in time. A manager or executive dismissed with notice or notice pay needs six months’ service: [2026] SGECT 8 at [16], [39]. A wrongful dismissal claim goes to TADM within one month of your last day; salary claims within six months of leaving, or one year if you are still employed. Our guide to TADM and the Employment Claims Tribunals explains each step.

---

Frequently asked questions

Do I have to give a reason when I terminate an employee with notice in Singapore?

Not as a matter of law. In [2026] SGECT 9 the tribunal said there is no general rule requiring an employer to state a reason when it terminates with notice, and declined to create one [118], [154]-[160], [730]. But if a wrongful dismissal claim is brought, the tribunal asks whether a just cause or excuse was absent [464], and the employer must then identify the actual basis of its decision and answer the claim [729]; it should be ready to do so with contemporaneous material and witnesses able to show what the concern was, whether it bore on the decision and why it justified dismissal [730]. The legal burden of proving the absence of just cause or excuse remained on the employee [732]; the employer bears at most an evidential burden to answer a case that calls for one [733], [742]. An explanation offered only at the hearing carried less weight than records and the evidence of those who made the decision [730], [741]. The employer has leave to appeal that decision [5].

Can I dismiss an employee for misconduct without an inquiry if I pay notice?

Not on the reading adopted in [2026] SGECT 1. The “due inquiry” requirement in section 14(1) of the Employment Act is triggered by the ground of misconduct, so it applies whether or not notice or salary in lieu is paid [67]-[68], [79(e)]. The standard is modest: clear notice of the allegations, a real opportunity to answer and open-minded consideration of the answer [82]. Your own disciplinary rules do not raise that threshold [71], [79(g)], and there is no statutory right to an internal appeal [88]. The employer has applied for leave to appeal [8].

What happens if I miss the MOM retrenchment notification deadline?

In [2026] SGECT 3 a late notification under section 96A of the Employment Act and the Employment (Retrenchment Reporting) Notification 2019 did not make the redundancy a sham or the dismissal wrongful; without a positive explanation for why the employer would give a false reason, process defects showed poor execution, not an ulterior motive [44]-[45]. It still had a cost. With the failures in consultation and redeployment, it was the reason the successful employer was refused all costs and disbursements [73]-[74]. Whether MOM takes separate action over a late notification was not before the tribunal.

Can I retire an employee immediately once they reach the retirement age?

No, on the reasoning in [2026] SGECT 5, where the tribunal held that there is no power, under contract, statute or the general law, to bring the contract to an immediate end once the employee reaches the retirement age. The employer could have given contractual notice or salary in lieu; by terminating on the spot it was in repudiatory breach and liable for two months’ salary in lieu under section 16 of the Employment Act [9]-[11]. The Retirement and Re-employment Act also requires a re-employment offer before the employee reaches that age [36], and an offer of less than one year that the employee does not accept does not discharge the obligation [41], [43].

The case notes linked above discuss each decision in detail, as do the companion guides on wrongful dismissal and on salary, overtime, commission and deductions.

This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. It discusses decisions of the Employment Claims Tribunals as reported at the citations 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.