Paid Your Notice but Called It Misconduct? Why the Employer Still Had to Prove Dishonesty ([2026] SGECT 1)

What happened

The employee joined the employer, a financial-sector company, in September 2021 on a contract with three months’ notice [25]. Staff could claim outpatient medical expenses under the employer’s medical benefits policy. Between March and September 2023 the employee submitted 62 claims, totalling just under $10,000, for purchases at one clinic. The purchases were mostly vitamins, supplements and skincare items. She never consulted a doctor there [25], [27].

In late 2023 the group’s human resources function reviewed all claims linked to that clinic across the workforce. Employees were banded by the number and value of their claims, and those in the highest band, including the employee, were sent to a disciplinary inquiry before a three-member committee [5]-[6], [13], [26]. The employee’s explanation was that colleagues and clinic staff had told her that non-itemised receipts under $200 could be claimed, that many colleagues did the same, and that she had not read the policy. She offered to repay everything [26]-[27], [32].

The committee found an intentional and dishonest breach of policy, but in view of her relatively junior position, clean record and repayment it recommended only a warning and the loss of her 2023 bonus [28]-[29]. When the report reached the employer’s global head of human resources for approval, she asked the committee to reconsider. It reconvened the same day and, by a majority, changed its recommendation to termination [30].

On 18 April 2024 the employee was given three months’ notice by a letter recording intentional misconduct involving dishonesty [30]-[31]. In May 2024 the employer brought the end date forward and paid salary in lieu of the unserved notice [30]. Her internal appeal was screened out without an appeal committee being convened [33]. She remained out of work for a sustained period afterwards and gave evidence that one prospective employer had declined to interview her because of the dismissal [35], [105].

After unsuccessful union-assisted mediation at TADM, she filed two claims in the Employment Claims Tribunals: wrongful dismissal under section 14(2) of the Employment Act, claiming $25,998, and her 2023 bonus of $13,000 [24], [34]. A number of colleagues brought parallel claims. The tribunal decided them all the same way and wrote full grounds only in this case [8]-[9].

What the tribunal decided

Because the termination letter stated reasons, section 27(2)(b) of the Employment Claims Act placed the burden on the employer to prove them [91]. This is a first-instance decision, reached without argument from counsel because parties appear in person [4], and the employer has applied for leave to appeal in all the related cases [8]. The grounds also contain a long annex offering a structured analysis of the law on dismissals in Singapore, which the tribunal itself described as largely obiter, meaning not necessary to the decision [10]; this article draws on the operative holdings.

A due inquiry is required even where notice is paid. Section 14(1) allows an employer, “after due inquiry”, to dismiss an employee without notice on the grounds of misconduct. The tribunal read “after due inquiry” as attaching to the ground of misconduct, not to the mode of summary dismissal [67]. Whenever misconduct is the real basis for ending the employment, the inquiry requirement is engaged even if notice or salary in lieu is given [68], [79(e)]. In the tribunal’s words: “The choice to give notice does not dissolve the inquiry requirement that was triggered by the ground the employer chose to invoke.” [68] Otherwise an employer could attach the stigma of misconduct while evading the process by paying notice [68], [70].

What a due inquiry requires. The standard is modest: clear notice of the allegations, a real opportunity to answer, and open-minded consideration of the answer [82], [79(f)]. An employer’s own disciplinary rules do not raise that threshold, and breaches of a contractual disciplinary framework are not independently actionable in a section 14(2) claim [71], [79(g)]. There is no statutory right to an internal appeal [88]. Here the inquiry was adequate: a notice of investigation, a notice of the charges, an interview, a committee hearing and written reasons [83]-[87].

An employer that states reasons must prove them, and then show they justify dismissal. The employer submitted that it only had to show its stated reason was not false. The tribunal held that submission incomplete. There are two steps. First, truth: the material particulars of the stated reason must be proved on the balance of probabilities, including any state of mind, such as dishonesty or wilfulness, that the employer itself invoked. The tribunal said “it is not enough to show a bare breach of policy” [73]. Second, sufficiency: the proved facts, viewed in context, must amount to just cause or excuse rather than warranting a lesser penalty [73], [79(j)]. The tribunal decides afresh rather than reviewing the internal decision [79(c)], [91]. If the stated reason fails but a lesser wrong is proved, the lesser wrong may be considered only if it was fairly put to the employee and coheres with the letter’s core account of why the employment ended [75], [79(k)].

Dishonesty was not proved. The employer relied on patterns: counter purchases without consultations, repetition, clustering just under the $200 threshold and the total sum. These warranted scrutiny but were as consistent with a workforce-wide misunderstanding as with a plan to deceive. There was no training acknowledgment, no ignored warning, no concealment and no admission [92]. Staying under $200 was what a compliant employee would do if she believed such claims were allowed [93]. The employee used ordinary channels, altered nothing and offered to repay [97]. The committee had first recommended a warning, and the escalation to dismissal followed a request to reconsider rather than new evidence [98]. Recklessness and wilful blindness also failed [96].

The lesser wrong did not justify dismissal. The employee had negligently made impermissible claims by relying on practice rather than the written policy, and that wrong could be considered [99]. But the practice was widespread, she had no prior record, the committee had itself seen enough mitigation to recommend a warning, and employees with comparable patterns were warned or had bonuses reduced rather than dismissed [100]-[101]. The employer’s own position was that dishonesty triggered termination and that without it a warning and bonus consequences were within range [101]. The tribunal said: “Parity is not a veto, but it is a cross-check on proportionality.” [101] The claim succeeded [102].

Compensation. Loss of income covers the earnings shortfall caused by the dismissal, capped at three months [103]-[104]. The employee had stayed unemployed well beyond that window and had evidence that the dismissal was hindering her search, so the full $12,999 was awarded [105]. No deduction was made for the notice and salary in lieu already paid, because the compensable period was the post-notice period and there was no overlap [106]; the tribunal’s summary of principle still describes loss of income as net of salary in lieu [79(m)]. For harm, the tribunal took a two-month base, an approach of its own rather than a settled rule, found no aggravating factors, and deducted one month as a mitigating factor in the employer’s favour, reflecting the employee’s negligence in submitting impermissible claims: $4,333 [107]-[108]. The total was $17,332, plus $1,070 in costs and disbursements [112].

The bonus claim failed. The bonus was discretionary and the employer had not committed to any amount [109]. The discretion was not exercised in bad faith, since conduct was a legitimate factor and the employee had in fact made impermissible claims [110]. Success on wrongful dismissal did not create a bonus right, and the bonus could not be added to loss of income because it would have been zero in any event, was not near-certain, and the cap was exhausted [111].

What this means for employers

• If the letter says misconduct, hold the inquiry first. On this decision, paying notice or salary in lieu does not remove the due inquiry requirement once misconduct is the real basis for dismissal [66]-[70], [79(e)]. The employee must know the case, be heard and have the answer considered with an open mind [82].
• Choose the words in the termination letter with care, because you will have to prove them. “Dishonesty”, “wilful” or “intentional” means proving that state of mind. A breach of policy is not enough [73], [91]-[98]. A lesser wrong can rescue the dismissal only if it was fairly put to the employee and fits the letter’s account of why the employment ended [75], [79(k)].
• Patterns alone rarely prove dishonesty. Frequency, repetition and receipts kept just under a threshold were equally consistent with a shared misunderstanding. The tribunal looked for a training acknowledgment, an ignored warning, concealment or an admission, and found none [92]-[93], [95].
• Do not use the approval stage to reverse a committee’s sanction without new evidence. The switch from a warning to termination on the same day, at the request of the head of human resources, with no new evidence identified, pointed to uncertainty about the mental element [30], [98].
• Treat like cases alike, or be ready to explain why not. Where your own practice shows comparable conduct attracts a warning, the onus is on you to articulate the principled difference; unexplained disparity weighs against just cause or excuse [78], [100]-[101]. Keep the records that prove the inquiry happened: the notices, interview notes and written committee report were what satisfied the tribunal here [83]-[87].

What this means for employees

• If the letter accuses you of dishonesty, the employer must prove it. You can succeed even if you did breach a policy, provided the employer cannot prove the state of mind it alleged and cannot show that dismissal, rather than a warning, was proportionate [91]-[102].
• Read the policy yourself. Relying on colleagues or counter staff without checking the written rules was held to be negligent. That negligence cut the harm award by one month and contributed to the failure of the bonus claim [99], [108], [110]. Candour, ordinary channels, no concealment and an offer to repay counted in the employee’s favour on dishonesty [97].
• If colleagues were treated more leniently, do the groundwork. Identify who they were, what they did, their roles and records, how they were dealt with and why they are materially alike. General assertions will likely fail [78].
• Keep evidence of your job search. Proof of sustained unemployment and of recruiter feedback that the dismissal had cost an interview secured the full three months of loss of income [35], [105].
• Know the gateway rules. A wrongful dismissal claim must be lodged at TADM within one month of your last day of employment, and mediation precedes any tribunal claim. Awards are capped at $20,000, or $30,000 with union-assisted or Tripartite Mediation Framework mediation, and lawyers do not represent parties at the hearing. Our guide to TADM and the Employment Claims Tribunals explains the process. The tribunal cannot decide whether your employer breached its own disciplinary procedure; that belongs to the civil courts [79(b)]. Winning does not by itself entitle you to a discretionary bonus [109]-[111].

---

Frequently asked questions

Can my employer sack me for misconduct if they pay me my notice period?

An employer can end employment by giving contractual notice. But if it bases the dismissal on misconduct, this decision holds that it must first conduct a due inquiry under section 14(1) of the Employment Act, even though notice or salary in lieu is paid [66]-[70]. You must be told the allegations, given a real chance to respond and have your answer considered [82]. If the employer records misconduct as the reason, it bears the burden of proving it in any wrongful dismissal claim [91]. The employer has sought leave to appeal this first-instance ruling [8].

If my termination letter says I was dishonest, does my employer have to prove it?

Yes, on this decision. Where the letter states reasons, section 27(2)(b) of the Employment Claims Act places the burden on the employer [91]. Words such as “dishonesty”, “wilful” or “intent” must be proved as a state of mind on the balance of probabilities; a bare breach of policy is not enough [73]. If that fails, the tribunal may consider a lesser wrong only if it was fairly put to you before dismissal and fits the letter’s core account [75], [79(k)], and the employer must still show that dismissal rather than a warning was proportionate [99]-[101].

Do I still get compensation for wrongful dismissal if I was already paid salary in lieu of notice?

You can. Here the employee received notice and salary in lieu and was still awarded the full three months of loss of income, because that head compensates the post-notice period in which the dismissal impaired her ability to find comparable work, and the notice payment covered a different period [104]-[106]. Loss of income is capped at three months. A separate harm award starts, on this tribunal’s approach, from a two-month base adjusted for aggravating and mitigating factors [107]-[108]. Loss of income is described as net of salary in lieu [79(m)], so a deduction may apply where the periods overlap.

My colleagues got a warning for the same thing but I was fired, can I use that in my ECT claim?

Yes, as a proportionality check rather than a complete answer. Unequal treatment does not decide whether you did what was alleged. Once some misconduct is established, like cases should generally be treated alike unless there is a principled distinction such as seniority, prior record, candour or the sensitivity of the role [76]-[77], [79(l)]. You must identify the comparators and show why they are materially alike [78]. Where the employer’s own practice shows comparable conduct attracted a warning, the onus shifts to the employer to explain why dismissal was necessary in your case [78], [101].

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.