Johnathan Lee Kui Bao

Why these decisions matter

Employment disputes in Singapore that fall within the statutory cap and are not resolved at mediation at the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) are decided by the Employment Claims Tribunals (the ECT). Claims are capped at $20,000, or $30,000 where the mediation was union-assisted or under the Tripartite Mediation Framework, and parties are not represented by lawyers at the hearing. The decisions discussed here are unusual because the tribunals set out their reasoning in detail on the questions employers and employees ask most often: whether paying notice is enough, who must prove the reason, what an inquiry requires, and when a resignation counts as a dismissal. They are first-instance decisions. Where a point is obiter, or an appeal is pending, this guide says so. For the statutory rights themselves, see our employment rights checklist.

Just cause or excuse: notice pay does not answer the question

The Employment Act defines “dismiss” to include termination “with or without notice and for cause or otherwise”, so section 14(2) applies to a contractually clean termination. In [2026] SGECT 9 a construction company ended a senior manager’s employment the day after he submitted a tender, paying his full salary for the month in place of the one week’s salary in lieu due, and giving no reason [4], [9], [17]. The tribunal held that notice on its own “cannot sensibly constitute” a just cause or excuse [100]: “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 Tripartite Guidelines on Wrongful Dismissal must be considered, but where they depart from section 14(2) the ECT must decline to follow them, and their presumption that a dismissal with notice is not wrongful is not a legal presumption [87], [133], [135].

Four cautions attach to [2026] SGECT 9. The employee’s allegation that he was dismissed for disclosing a mental health condition failed on the facts [738]. The tribunal said openly that much of its reasoning was obiter, meaning not necessary for the result [56]. The published grounds are a revised Version No 2. And the employer obtained leave to appeal in May 2026 [5], so the High Court may vary or reverse it. [2026] SGECT 1 points the same way: three months’ notice was given, salary in lieu paid, and three months’ loss of income still awarded on top [106], [112]. [2026] SGECT 5 was decided on contractual principles: an employer that recorded a manager’s retirement with immediate effect after he passed the statutory retirement age, without notice or salary in lieu, had “renounced the performance of its obligations” and owed two months’ salary in lieu under section 16 of the Employment Act [9]-[11], [13].

Who must prove what

Section 27(2) of the Employment Claims Act allocates the burden of proof by reference to how the employment ended ([2026] SGECT 3 [36]). Reasons stated in the letter. In [2026] SGECT 1 the letter recorded misconduct aggravated by dishonesty, so section 27(2)(b) placed the burden on the employer [91]. It had to prove the stated reason, including any state of mind it chose to allege, and then show that the proved facts justified dismissal rather than a lesser penalty [73], [91]. “[I]t is not enough to show a bare breach of policy” [73]. Notice pay and no reason. In [2026] SGECT 9, subject to the cautions above, salary in lieu had been paid and section 14(1) had not been invoked, so neither limb applied and the legal burden stayed with the employee [732]. He could meet it with circumstantial evidence from the objective course of his employment [733]. Nor must he name a bad motive: he “may establish the absence of just cause or excuse without proving discrimination, retaliation, deprivation of a benefit, or some other positively improper purpose” [456]. He lost on discrimination yet succeeded [746]. Redundancy with notice. In [2026] SGECT 3 there was no shift: “Redundancy is neither poor performance nor misconduct and Parliament did not provide for a burden-shift in such cases” [36]. The employee had to prove that the reason was not genuine or that retaliation materially operated on the decision.

Misconduct and due inquiry

Section 14(1) allows an employer, “after due inquiry”, to dismiss without notice on the grounds of misconduct. In [2026] SGECT 1 the tribunal read “after due inquiry” as attaching to the ground of misconduct, not the mode of dismissal, so the requirement is engaged whenever misconduct is the real basis for ending the employment, even if notice or salary in lieu is given [67]-[68], [79(e)]. “The choice to give notice does not dissolve the inquiry requirement that was triggered by the ground the employer chose to invoke.” [68] It requires clear notice of the allegations, a real opportunity to answer, and open-minded consideration of the answer [82]. That employer had held an adequate inquiry [83]-[87] and still lost. The employee had made 62 claims under a medical benefits policy for items such as vitamins and supplements [25], [27], and the letter alleged dishonesty, which was not proved [92]-[98]. The lesser wrong proved, negligent reliance on practice rather than the written policy, did not justify dismissal when employees with comparable patterns were warned or had bonuses reduced [99]-[101]. “Parity is not a veto, but it is a cross-check on proportionality.” [101] She recovered $17,332 [112]. The employer has applied for leave to appeal [8].

Forced resignation is a dismissal

The Employment Act defines “dismiss” to include a resignation where the employee shows, on a balance of probabilities, that she did not resign voluntarily but was forced to by the employer’s conduct [111]. In [2026] SGECT 10 an employee in an administrative role at an international school returned after cancer treatment with medical recommendations of light duties and time for rehabilitation sessions [12], [14]. Her line manager agreed [26], [27], but two months later the school’s leadership required her on campus five days a week under its flexible working policy and said her documents were not a “Light Duties Medical Certificate” [39], [40]. Her health deteriorated and she resigned [95], [101]-[102]. An employee is forced to resign “where the employer’s conduct has left the employee with no practical alternative or choice but to resign, assessed by reference to what it was reasonable to conclude in the circumstances” [116]. A subjective feeling of having no choice is not enough, and the employer’s conduct must be the operative cause [116], [117]. She reasonably chose her health over her job [118], [122]. “An employer cannot take refuge in the letter of a policy of its own making to escape the reach of its duties” [66]. Whether the employer had just cause or excuse is a separate question [123], [125]; a medical condition can be one, but only after a reasonable inquiry into it and consultation with the employee [130], [134]-[136]. The claim was allowed at the $20,000 limit [140], [142].

Redundancy: a reshaped role, a flawed process and no statutory benefit

In [2026] SGECT 3 a financial-sector company made its head of human resources redundant on two months’ notice. He alleged retaliation for earlier emails and a whistleblowing report. The emails were not whistleblowing [38]-[39], and the report post-dated the written business case and the at-risk notice, so it could not have caused the decision [41]. “Redundancy need not involve the wholesale disappearance of every task formerly performed by the incumbent” [43]; that HR work continued proved only that HR work remained to be done. Process defects, including a late notification to the Ministry of Manpower, did not make the reason false: “the lapses spoke only to poor execution and did not reveal any ulterior motive” [44]. The reason was redundancy and it was genuine [45]. Section 45 of the Employment Act “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]; entitlement depends on the contract or a collective agreement [53]. The employer won every claim but was refused costs because of the late notification and how the redundancy was handled, criticisms of managerial practice rather than findings of legal impropriety [73]-[74]. The published grounds do not record whether the decision has been appealed.

Who can claim at all

Before the ECT reaches the merits, the employee must be a “relevant employee” under section 14(2A) of the Employment Act, which [2026] SGECT 8 treated as a jurisdictional fact [12], [14]. As the tribunal summarised the section, a manager or executive dismissed with notice, or without notice but with salary in lieu, must have served at least six months; one dismissed without notice and without salary in lieu has no stated minimum; for other employees none is stated [16]. The employee, a manager at a technology company, had served 5 months and 27 days when he was dismissed by a letter promising salary in lieu [2], [23]. He filed at TADM three days later, before the money arrived, and argued that his status should be judged at that date, which the tribunal rejected [32]. The letter had committed the employer to notice pay, and payment was made in full a week later and accepted without objection [34]. He was not a relevant employee [35], and the claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction [39]. The tribunal added that “this is not a decision on the merits” [41]. Every wrongful dismissal claim must also reach TADM within one month of the last day of employment; salary claims have longer limits. Mediation precedes any hearing. Our guide to TADM and the Employment Claims Tribunals explains each step.

What this means for employers

• Notice pay ends the contract; it does not answer a section 14(2) claim. The employer “must still identify the actual basis of its decision and answer that claim” ([2026] SGECT 9 [729]).
• If the reason is misconduct, hold the inquiry first and choose the words in the letter with care. Writing “dishonesty” means proving that state of mind ([2026] SGECT 1 [66]-[70], [73], [91]).
• Evidence the reason through the people who saw the events. In [2026] SGECT 9 the wider performance criticisms could not be established because the managers who assessed the work were not called [744]-[745].
• Engage with the substance of medical advice, not its form. A policy cannot override the duty of care ([2026] SGECT 10 [66], [83]).
• In a redundancy, document the business case before the at-risk conversation and follow the process through. In [2026] SGECT 3 the business case and the at-risk notice both pre-dated the report, and the emails relied on were not protected disclosures, so the retaliation claim failed [38]-[41]; the late MOM notification cost the winning employer its costs [73]-[74].
• Retirement age is not a termination right. Immediate termination without notice or salary in lieu is a repudiatory breach ([2026] SGECT 5 [9]-[11]).

What this means for employees

• A termination with notice pay and no reason can still be challenged. The burden is on you, but the objective course of your employment can meet it ([2026] SGECT 9 [732], [733]).
• You do not have to prove discrimination. The employee in [2026] SGECT 9 lost on discrimination and still succeeded [456], [746]. The employer has leave to appeal [5].
• If the letter accuses you of dishonesty, the employer must prove it. If it cannot, the tribunal may still uphold the dismissal on a lesser wrong that was proved, provided that wrong sits within the gravamen of what was put to you before dismissal ([2026] SGECT 1 [75], [79(k)], [99]). The employee there succeeded because the lesser wrong proved did not justify dismissal when colleagues with comparable patterns had been warned or had bonuses reduced [100]-[101].
• A resignation can be a dismissal, but feeling you had no choice is not enough. The employer’s conduct must have left you no practical alternative and been the operative cause ([2026] SGECT 10 [116], [117]).
• In a redundancy with notice you carry the burden, and there is no statutory retrenchment benefit. In [2026] SGECT 3 the at-risk notice pre-dated the whistleblowing report, so the report could not have caused the decision [41]; a benefit depends on your contract or a collective agreement [53], [55].
• Check eligibility before you file. A manager or executive with under six months’ service dismissed with notice or notice pay cannot bring the claim ([2026] SGECT 8 [16], [39]).

---

Frequently asked questions

Can my employer terminate me with notice pay and no reason in Singapore?

Contractually, yes. There is no general duty to give a reason for a termination on notice or salary in lieu ([2026] SGECT 9 [118], [730]). Whether the dismissal was without just cause or excuse under section 14(2) is a separate question. In [2026] SGECT 9 the tribunal held that a contractually effective dismissal may still lack just cause or excuse [755]. The employer has leave to appeal [5].

Does an employer have to hold an inquiry before dismissing for misconduct if it pays notice?

On the reading adopted in [2026] SGECT 1, yes. The “due inquiry” requirement in section 14(1) attaches to the ground of misconduct, not to summary dismissal, so paying notice or salary in lieu does not switch it off [66]-[70]. You must be told the allegations, given a real chance to respond and have your answer considered [82]. If misconduct is recorded as the reason, the employer bears the burden of proving it [91]. The employer in that case has applied for leave to appeal [8].

I resigned because of how my employer treated me. Can I claim wrongful dismissal?

You can if you show, on a balance of probabilities, that you did not resign voluntarily but were forced to by the employer’s conduct ([2026] SGECT 10 [111]). The test applied was whether that conduct left you with no practical alternative but to resign, judged objectively in light of your situation, and the conduct must be the operative cause [116], [117]. The employee there succeeded because her employer refused to engage with medical advice [86], [122].

Can I claim wrongful dismissal if I was made redundant?

You can bring the claim, but in a redundancy with notice you must prove that the reason was not genuine or that an improper motive materially operated on the decision ([2026] SGECT 3 [36]). A reshaped role can be a redundancy, and the fact that your work is still being done by others does not by itself prove a sham [43]. As [2026] SGECT 3 held, consistent with the Tripartite Advisory on Managing Excess Manpower and Responsible Retrenchment, there is no statutory right to a retrenchment benefit; entitlement depends on the contract or a collective agreement [53], [55].

Can a manager with under six months’ service bring a wrongful dismissal claim?

Usually not. As the tribunal summarised section 14(2A) in [2026] SGECT 8, a manager or executive dismissed with notice, or without notice but with salary in lieu, must have served at least six months [16], [23]. On the facts of that case, a letter promising notice pay, followed by payment that was accepted without objection, meant that the employee had been dismissed with notice pay even though the money arrived after he filed at TADM [34(d)], [35]; the tribunal confined its reasoning to the facts and held that the statute does not fix the date of the mediation request as the date of assessment [31]-[32]. Dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is not a finding that the dismissal was fair [41].

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.