Wrongful Dismissal before the Singapore Employment Claims Tribunals

Singapore’s first published ECT decision provides detailed guidance on the wrongful dismissal framework.

In Singapore’s first published Employment Claims Tribunals (“ECT”) decision, an employee who had breached her employer’s reimbursement claims policy nevertheless succeeded in a wrongful dismissal claim. The employer characterised her conduct as dishonest, but the tribunal found that dishonesty was not proved on the evidence.

In JGP v JGQ [2026] SGECT 1, a first-instance tribunal decision for which the employer has sought leave to appeal, the tribunal took the opportunity to provide detailed guidance on how wrongful dismissal claims are to be assessed.

Facts in brief

The case arose from an internal investigation into a group of employees after the employer identified a high volume of reimbursement claims, submitted under its medical benefits policy, for non-medical retail items purchased from a particular clinic – including vitamins, supplements and skincare products.

One employee, anonymised as “Ms C”, had submitted 62 claims, including claims for chicken essence and, on one occasion, an electric toothbrush. Her claims totalled about S$10,000 over roughly six months. Many were made on consecutive days and were often just below the S$200 no-itemisation threshold. Ms C had never consulted a doctor at that clinic.

Following the investigation, a significant number of employees received warnings (often accompanied by reductions to their bonuses), and around 40 employees were dismissed. Of those, Ms C and five others, who had been dismissed in a similar manner, brought wrongful dismissal claims before the ECT, which were heard by the same tribunal magistrate. Ms C had been terminated for “intentional misconduct involving dishonesty”, with three months’ notice, part of which was later paid out as salary in lieu.

All six claimants succeeded. The tribunal accepted that Ms C had committed a wrong, but only a “lesser wrong”. In its view, the pattern of claims below the itemisation threshold was consistent with a shared misunderstanding of the policy, and the employer had not discharged its burden of proving dishonesty. The tribunal found that Ms C had been negligent rather than dishonest, and that this level of negligent misconduct did not, in the circumstances, justify dismissal. It awarded her compensation of S$17,332, comprising three months’ loss of income and one month’s salary for non pecuniary harm.

Key points of the decision

1. Two dismissal regimes. In the civil courts, uncapped common law “wrongful dismissal” claims turn on whether the employer has complied with its contractual obligations; the reason for dismissal is largely irrelevant. In the ECT, in contrast, statutory wrongful dismissal claims (which are capped) can succeed even where the employer has complied with the contract, if the dismissal is found to be “without just cause or excuse”.

2. Reasons for dismissal. Where an employer gives a reason for dismissal, the burden lies on the employer to prove that reason, including any alleged dishonesty or other aggravating element. Establishing only a lesser form of misconduct will not necessarily be sufficient.

3. The risks of remaining silent. The tribunal opined obiter that where no reason is given, an employee may still succeed by showing that an “ordinary and reasonable employer” would not have dismissed in the circumstances. This may shift the evidential burden to the employer to demonstrate just cause or excuse – one that may be difficult to discharge if the employer chose to remain silent.

4. Proportionality of the sanction. The tribunal considered that proving the stated reason is not the end of the analysis – there is a question of proportionality. The employer must show that the misconduct was serious enough to justify dismissal. Parity, i.e. whether the same consequences apply to comparable employees, functions as a cross-check. In this case, employees who were considered not dishonest were not dismissed. The tribunal reasoned that Ms C, being only negligent, likewise should not have been dismissed.

5. Due inquiry, even where dismissal is on notice. Where dismissal is for misconduct, the statutory requirement of due inquiry applies even if the termination is with notice or with salary in lieu. The tribunal emphasised that the standard is modest: fair notice of the case, a real opportunity to respond, and fair-minded consideration. A more elaborate internal disciplinary procedure does not, in itself, raise that statutory threshold.

Practical takeaways for employers

• If a reason for dismissal is given, expect to have to prove that reason as framed if challenged (for example, that the conduct was “gross”, “wilful” or “dishonest”).
• Always carry out and document a due inquiry for misconduct-related terminations, even where notice (or salary in lieu) is provided.
• In group investigations, apply frameworks and sanctions consistently across the cohort, and record the rationale for any differences in outcome.
• Findings on an employee’s state of mind should be supported by clear, positive evidence, and not rest solely on inference from circumstantial facts.
• Even if no reasons are communicated externally, maintain an internal record of the decision-making process, in case this needs to be adduced as evidence.

Postscript – points of law to continue monitoring

• Silence. The tribunal’s opinion on how the burden of proof could shift when an employer remains silent appears to sit uncomfortably alongside prevailing guidelines on wrongful dismissal. Those guidelines do not set out the tribunal’s proposed “ordinary and reasonable employer” test. Instead, an illustration in the guidelines provides that where an employee cannot point to any suggestion that the employer’s intention was “anything other than termination in accordance with the contract”, a dismissal with notice is not wrongful.
• Proportionality. The tribunal’s introduction of a second-stage inquiry, proportionality, is also not a requirement evident from the prevailing guidelines; illustrations within the guidelines focus on truth-testing: whether a reason, if given, is proved. There is no existing Singapore law on this; the tribunal appears to have borrowed from Malaysian law.
• Due inquiry requirement. The tribunal reasoned that a due inquiry is required for misconduct dismissals, regardless of whether notice is given. Otherwise, employers could evade the due inquiry process by giving notice, while still attaching a “grave label” of misconduct and affixing “lasting stigma” on the employee. The point is laudable, but could be better taken up by the legislature. Section 14(1) of the Employment Act 1968 reads: “[a]n employer may after due inquiry dismiss without notice an employee employed by the employer on the grounds of misconduct inconsistent with the fulfilment of the express or implied conditions of the employee’s service…”.
• Employment Act review. The points made by the tribunal may influence an ongoing review of the Employment Act 1968.