Johnathan Lee Kui Bao

What happened

The employer in [2026] SGECT 3 was a financial-sector company. The employee joined in late 2022 to lead its human resources function. His contract provided for two months’ notice and for discretionary variable pay, deliverable in cash or share options subject to plan rules. In December 2023 he was granted share options vesting in three annual tranches, the first at the end of December 2024 [3].

In August 2024 the company’s two most senior executives proposed mid-year pay rises and share awards for a small group of staff. On the chief executive’s instruction the employee sent the proposal to the group’s remuneration governance team [5], which advised deferring it to the year end [6]-[7]. It was deferred [8].

In late September 2024 the employer prepared a written business case for making its head of human resources role redundant. In early October it told the employee his role was at risk and opened a two-week consultation [9]. The following day he filed a formal whistleblowing report through the group’s internal channel, alleging favouritism, non-compliance with policy and retaliation for his August emails [10]. The parent company’s HR team had been told to send him a list of available roles but never did [11].

Two weeks later he received a notice of redundancy with two months’ notice, immediate gardening leave and a statement that he was not eligible for 2024 variable compensation [12]. The employer also missed the statutory deadline for notifying the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) of the retrenchment [12]. His last day was extended to the end of 2024 and he was paid two weeks’ salary for each year of service as a retrenchment benefit [15].

He brought two ECT claims: one for wrongful dismissal, and one for a further month’s retrenchment benefit and the first tranche of his share options [1]. Both sides appeared in person.

What the tribunal decided

Burden of proof. Section 27(2) of the Employment Claims Act shifts the burden to the employer only for summary dismissal, or where notice is given for poor performance or misconduct. Redundancy is neither, and Parliament provided no burden shift for it. The employee had to prove that the redundancy reason was not genuine or that retaliation materially operated on the decision [36].

No retaliation. The August emails were not whistleblowing. The employee was relaying management’s proposal and the governance team’s response on the chief executive’s instruction, acting as the conduit expected of a head of human resources [38]-[39]. A retaliating employer could simply have terminated with notice at less cost and scrutiny than a redundancy with severance [40]. The only formal report post-dated the business case and the at-risk notice, so by simple chronology it could not have caused the decision [41]. The tribunal was not persuaded that retaliation operated on the employer’s mind at all [42].

A reshaped role can be a redundancy. Redundancy does not require every task the employee performed to disappear. The account that the role was being reframed around change-management skills, with operational work absorbed by a subordinate, was coherent. That HR work continued proved only that HR work remained to be done, not that the role was backfilled like for like or that the rationale was a sham [43].

Process defects did not make the reason false. The unsent list of alternative roles and the late MOM notification warranted criticism, but without a positive explanation for why the employer would give a false reason they showed poor execution, not an ulterior motive [44]. The reason was redundancy and it was genuine. The wrongful dismissal claim failed [45].

Section 45 of the Employment Act creates no statutory right. Section 45 says only that an employee with less than two years’ continuous service is not entitled to a retrenchment benefit on dismissal on the ground of redundancy or by reason of any reorganisation of the employer’s profession, business, trade or work [47]. It is framed entirely in the negative [49]. Reading it as the negative half of an implied general right would depart radically from the settled understanding and raise questions of quantification that Parliament has never addressed [52]. Entitlement depends on contract or a collective agreement, as the Tripartite Advisory on Managing Excess Manpower and Responsible Retrenchment assumes [53]. Section 45 “does not, on any tenable reading, create a general statutory entitlement to a retrenchment benefit in favour of employees with at least two years’ continuous service” [55]. This is a first-instance analysis, and the tribunal acknowledged that it leaves the positive function of section 45 at an unsatisfactory fork [54]-[55]. The published grounds do not record whether the decision has been appealed.

No contractual right either. The internal Redundancy Standard stated on its first page that it was non-contractual [57]. Labels are not decisive: a policy can become contractual by clear incorporation in the offer letter or by an unequivocal assurance, but the employee pointed to neither [58]. The employee’s evidence of an earlier redundancy in which one month per year was said to have been paid showed at most how the employer chose to apply its policy [56], [59], and no estoppel was pleaded. In the tribunal’s words: “Usage, however consistent, is not self-executing; it does not transubstantiate policy into contract.” [59] Tripartite advisories do not create private legal rights, and the advisory’s own norm of two weeks to one month per year of service meant the employee had not been underpaid [60]. The claim failed [61].

The share options did not vest. The contract made variable pay discretionary and conditional on neither party having given notice at the award date, and the plan rules gave the employer an absolute discretion over whether a leaver’s awards vest [63], [65]. The line in the redundancy notice withholding all 2024 variable compensation was a valid exercise of that discretion, broad in phrasing but clear in effect [68]. The tribunal’s task was supervisory: whether the decision was irrational or in bad faith, not whether it agreed with it [69]. The employee bore that burden and offered nothing concrete [70].

Procedural points. The Employment Claims Act bars only representation by engaged external counsel. A company may be represented by its own employee, even a legally trained one, and may take legal advice in the background [25]. The tribunal made these remarks to address objections that were no longer live, so they are commentary rather than a holding [25]. A letter of demand about confidentiality was disregarded as outside the ECT’s jurisdiction [27], and a summons to compel the employee’s former subordinate was refused because her evidence was not shown to be necessary and materially probative [31]-[33].

Costs refused despite complete success. The employer did not dispute that it had failed to comply with the retrenchment-reporting obligation under section 96A of the Employment Act read with the Employment (Retrenchment Reporting) Notification 2019. The tribunal also had reservations about how the parent company’s senior HR representative handled the redundancy: the notification should have been filed, redeployment properly explored and communicated, the employee told why no alternative role existed, and his email access during gardening leave better handled. Because the employer’s account was a reconstituted role rather than a vanished function, greater care in execution was called for [73]. The tribunal added: “To be clear, these are criticisms of managerial practice, not findings of legal impropriety.” They did not alter the outcome, but no costs or disbursements were awarded [74].

What this means for employers

The employer won every claim, but the decision is not a clean win.

• Put the business case in writing before any at-risk conversation. The employer succeeded largely because the dated business case and at-risk notice pre-dated the whistleblowing report, so the report could not have caused the decision [20], [41].
• Missing the MOM notification deadline cost the employer its costs. Late notification under section 96A and the 2019 Notification did not make the redundancy a sham [44]-[45], but it was the first reason the winning employer was refused costs and disbursements [73]. Diarise the deadline and confirm in writing that it was filed.
• Deliver the consultation and redeployment steps you promise. The unsent list of roles, the unexplained absence of alternatives and the email cut-off during gardening leave were criticised, and the tribunal said better handling might have avoided the dispute altogether. A redundancy that reshapes a role rather than removing it calls for greater care [73].
• Keep discretionary policies discretionary. The non-contractual statement on the policy and the absence of any incorporating clause in the contract defeated the claim [57]-[58], [61], despite the employee’s evidence that one month per year had been paid in an earlier exercise [56], [59].
• Draft share plan terms for leavers and record any exercise of discretion. Terms conditioning vesting on not being under notice, with a plan rule reserving discretion over leavers, meant the decision was reviewed only for rationality and good faith [63], [65], [69]. One broad sentence in the notice was accepted as a valid exercise [68]; a specific statement leaves less room for argument.

What this means for employees

• In a redundancy with notice, you carry the burden of proof. The burden shifts to the employer only for summary dismissal or notice given for poor performance or misconduct [36]. Timing alone did not prove motive here, and the documents defeated it [41]-[42].
• Doing your job is not whistleblowing. Passing a proposal to an approving body on management’s instruction was a head of human resources acting as the expected conduit [38]-[39]. A report filed after the at-risk notice cannot, by chronology, have caused the decision [41].
• There is no statutory retrenchment benefit. Your entitlement depends on your contract or a collective agreement [53], [55]. A policy marked non-contractual, or past generosity to others, will not found a claim unless it was incorporated into your contract or you were given an unequivocal assurance [58]-[59], [61]. Two weeks per year of service is within the advisory’s norm [60].
• Serving notice on the vesting date can cost you a share tranche if the plan reserves a discretion over leavers. You must prove the decision to withhold was irrational or in bad faith [69]-[70].
• Know the gateway rules. A claim goes through mediation at the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) before the ECT. A wrongful dismissal claim must be lodged at TADM within one month of your last day. The ECT can award up to $20,000, or $30,000 where the claim was mediated with union assistance or under the Tripartite Mediation Framework. Lawyers do not appear at ECT hearings, but either side may take advice beforehand. Our guide to TADM and the Employment Claims Tribunals explains the process.

---

Frequently asked questions

Does section 45 of the Employment Act give me a right to a retrenchment payment?

No, on the analysis in [2026] SGECT 3. Section 45 says only that an employee with less than two years’ continuous service is not entitled to a retrenchment benefit on dismissal on the ground of redundancy or by reason of any reorganisation of the employer’s profession, business, trade or work [47]. The tribunal held that this negative wording does not impliedly confer a general right on everyone with two or more years’ service [52]-[53], [55]. Entitlement comes from your contract or a collective agreement. The tribunal acknowledged that this leaves the function of section 45 unclear [54]-[55]. The published grounds do not record whether the decision has been appealed.

Is my company’s redundancy policy legally binding if it says it is non-contractual?

Usually not. A policy that describes itself as non-contractual guides internal practice and does not by itself import terms into your contract [57]. The label is not conclusive. It can become binding if your offer letter or contract incorporates it as binding terms, or if the employer gives an unequivocal assurance that it governs your employment as a legal obligation [58]. Applying the policy generously to others in the past is evidence of practice, not of obligation, unless you can prove an estoppel with representation, reliance and detriment [59].

What happens if an employer misses the MOM retrenchment notification deadline?

In this case the late notification under section 96A of the Employment Act and the 2019 Notification did not make the redundancy a sham or the dismissal wrongful [44]-[45]. It still had a cost. Together with the failures in consultation and redeployment, it was the reason the successful employer was refused all costs and disbursements, the tribunal describing these as criticisms of managerial practice rather than findings of legal impropriety [73]-[74]. Whether MOM takes separate action over a late notification was not before the tribunal.

Do my share options vest if I am serving notice or on gardening leave on the vesting date?

It depends on your contract and the plan rules. Here the contract made variable pay conditional on neither party having given notice at the award date, and the plan rules gave the employer an absolute discretion over whether a leaver’s awards vest [63], [65]. A statement in the redundancy notice withholding 2024 variable compensation was accepted as an exercise of that discretion [68]. The tribunal reviewed it only for irrationality or bad faith, which the employee had to prove [69]-[70]. Still being an employee on the vesting date was not enough.

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.