First published employment tribunal judgments spur worker to contest dismissal through mediation

Felicia was spurred to file a claim for wrongful dismissal after reading a news report about another worker’s success.

ST PHOTO: NG SOR LUAN

Published Nov 01, 2026, 05:00 AM

Updated Nov 01, 2026, 05:00 AM

SINGAPORE – Four months into her new job, Felicia, 39, felt she was being frozen out by her company’s leader.

Once warm and friendly, she started giving Felicia tasks with short deadlines, barely met her and nitpicked on work that Felicia, who wanted to be known only by her first name, found for herself.

Felicia began to suspect the company would move to terminate her job after she finished the project, which tapped her expertise in moving and setting up office spaces.

Sure enough, she was dismissed for poor performance shortly after her six-month mark at the firm, said the workplace specialist who has worked on around eight such moves over the last 12 years.

Her role covered office management and employee engagement.

A news report about a worker’s successful claim of wrongful dismissal, along with her friends’ urging, pushed Felicia, a union member, to file her case with the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) through NTUC.

The worker won the maximum $30,000 compensation as the magistrate found that she had been dismissed in a “sudden and unjustified” manner at the end of her six-month probation.

The magistrate said the employer had failed to justify its decision that the worker, an audit manager, had not passed probation.

Under the tripartite guidelines, where poor performance is cited as the reason for the dismissal, the employer bears the burden of proving it. The dismissal is considered wrongful if the employer is unable to do so.

This decision was revealed in one of 17 judgments the Employment Claims Tribunal (ECT) has released publicly to date in 2026 – its first set of publications since the tribunal was established in 2017.

The judgments clarify for employees and employers some of their responsibilities, and how the tripartite guidelines and laws interact and should be interpreted, employment lawyers told The Straits Times.

Felicia’s case did not go before the ECT as mediation with her company was successful. She eventually settled for three months of salary.

Workers like Felicia have become more aware that they can seek help through the release and news coverage of the judgments, lawyers said.

More broadly, the release has been significant and timely, as the judgments clarify some areas of employment law and practices ahead of the Workplace Fairness Act kicking in in 2027, they added.

The ECT’s role is set to expand as it will judge disputes under the landmark legislation, which was passed in 2025 and will protect workers from being discriminated against based on a set of protected characteristics such as age, nationality and sex.

The number of disputes TADM handled with union members has increased from 3,031 in 2021 to 4,396 in 2025. In 2025, 86% of these were successful. Figures from 2026 are not yet available.

NTUC assistant secretary-general and legal director Patrick Tay said the recent publications are mainly due to the need to provide clarity to both employers and employees on the principles that the ECT has been applying in its judgments.

He and NTUC have been lobbying for publication since 2018, he said.

Tay added that the judgments are “bellwethers” for issues that many employees face when they approach the unions or TADM for assistance.

He raised the example of judgment five, where a 63-year-old worker won two claims for wrongful dismissal and entitlement to an employment assistance payment after being dismissed three months after reaching the retirement age.

The worker won $26,350 when the judge ruled that the employer had breached its contract entitling the worker to two months’ notice or salary in lieu upon termination, as well as breached re-employment rules.

The other judgments deal with issues like terminating an employee for performance issues; constructive dismissal considering the employee's health and safety; and maternity leave and protections, Tay said.

Constructive dismissal is when an employee resigns because the employer’s conduct left them no choice – the law treats such resignations as a dismissal.

Tay noted that across the judgments, the ECT consistently referred to tripartite guidelines on re-employment and wrongful dismissal.

These are guidelines, which are not legally binding, agreed on by the unions, employers and the Government that were implemented in 2024.

Sean Sim, a partner at law firm Dentons Rodyk, said together, the judgments show how the ECT interprets concepts such as “just cause or excuse”, proportionality and the burdens of evidence on employers and employees.

“Some of the reasoning goes beyond what is expressly set out in the tripartite guidelines, which is why the developing case law will need to be watched carefully,” he added.

They also clarify the minimum standards or practices expected of employers, said Matthew Teo, a director at legal firm Helmsman.

Their publication should support greater consistency by allowing tribunal magistrates and parties to see how similar issues have previously been analysed, said Kelley Wong, a senior associate at Morgan Lewis.

Jennifer Chih, a director at Nair, Jen & Tan, also cautioned that while much of the discussion so far has centred on cases where employees succeeded in their claims against employers, this does not mean that Singapore employment law has become more employee-friendly. “Each case turns on its own facts.”

It is important for employees to understand their own employment documents and to keep proper records of anything that may become relevant if a dispute arises, such as appraisals, warnings, and key communications with their employer, she said.

Felicia said the evidence she gathered was what gave her the confidence to file her case.

“When you start to sense something is wrong, you need to have enough evidence to be able to prove a point,” she said, though she warned against complaining at the first sign of trouble as problems should first be raised one-on-one.

While the judgments offer clarity on interpretation, Sim added that they should not be seen as rewriting the common law of employment in Singapore.

At common law, the starting point remains the employment contract and the parties’ contractual rights of termination, he said.

The main set of laws governing employment in Singapore, the Employment Act, is currently under review.

Morgan Lewis’ Wong said the clearest area to watch is retrenchment.

The Manpower Ministry has said the review is considering stronger support for retrenched workers, including whether stronger obligations on employers are warranted, she noted.

It is also considering whether the mandatory retrenchment-notification period should be brought forward, and how to provide clearer guidance on what constitutes a retrenchment.

These issues were debated extensively in Parliament in October after retrenchments spiked to 4,620 in the second quarter of 2026, the highest figure since the Covid-19 pandemic.

Preliminary numbers released on Oct 30 showed retrenchments for the third quarter remaining elevated at 4,800.

One judgment published in July dealt with this directly.

The ECT held that Section 45 of the Employment Act – which bars workers with less than two years’ service from receiving retrenchment benefits – does not give anyone else a legal right to them.

Such payouts are owed only where an employment contract or collective agreement provides for them, the tribunal said.

More broadly, the review is an opportunity to consider whether the Employment Act continues to draw the right boundaries between different categories of workers and protections, said Sim from Dentons Rodyk.

This could apply to workers like Felicia, who is now working at a friend’s firm.

She has been let go from two permanent roles around the six-month mark in recent years – a shift from the past, when she held jobs for three to five years.

Wary of going through the same process again, she now suggests a six-month contract during interviews as it seems to better fit her expertise in moving offices.

Sim said the nature of work has evolved considerably, and Singapore has already had to develop a separate statutory framework for platform workers, who are not treated as employees but receive specific protections under the Platform Workers Act.

“That illustrates the broader challenge of ensuring that employment protections keep pace with increasingly diverse working arrangements.”

Employment Claims Tribunals

费利西亚在阅读了一篇关于另一位工人成功获得赔偿的新闻报道后，深受鼓舞，决定提起不当解雇索赔。

圣徒照片：吴索銮

发布于 2026 年 11 月 1 日上午 5:00

更新于2026年11月1日上午5:00

新加坡——39岁的菲利西亚在新工作上任四个月后，感觉自己被公司领导排挤了。

她曾经热情友好，后来却开始给费利西亚布置时间紧迫的任务，几乎不和她见面，还对费利西亚自己找到的工作吹毛求疵。费利西亚希望别人只称呼她的名字。

费利西亚开始怀疑，在她完成搬迁和布置办公空间的专长项目后，公司会解雇她。

果不其然，这位在过去 12 年里处理过大约 8 次类似人事变动的职场专家表示，她在公司工作满六个月后不久就因表现不佳而被解雇了。

她的职责包括办公室管理和员工关系。

一篇关于一名工人成功申诉不当解雇的新闻报道，加上朋友们的敦促，促使身为工会成员的费利西亚通过全国职工总会（NTUC）向三方争议管理联盟（TADM）提起诉讼。

法官认定，该工人在六个月的试用期结束时被“突然且不公正地”解雇，因此她获得了最高的 30,000 美元赔偿金。

地方法官表示，雇主未能证明其认定该员工（一名审计经理）未通过试用期的决定是合理的。

根据三方准则，如果解雇理由是绩效不佳，则由雇主承担举证责任。如果雇主无法证明这一点，则解雇将被视为不当解雇。

这项决定是在就业索赔法庭 (ECT) 于 2026 年迄今为止公开发布的 17 项判决之一中披露的——这是该法庭自 2017 年成立以来首次发布判决。

就业律师告诉《海峡时报》，这些判决为雇员和雇主明确了他们的一些责任，以及三方准则和法律如何相互作用和应该如何解释。

费利西亚的案件没有提交给紧急调解委员会，因为她与公司的调解取得了成功。最终，她获得了三个月的工资作为补偿。

律师们表示，像费利西亚这样的劳动者越来越意识到，他们可以通过判决的公布和新闻报道来寻求帮助。

他们补充说，更广泛地说，此次发布意义重大且及时，因为这些判决在《工作场所公平法案》于 2027 年生效之前，澄清了就业法律和实践的某些领域。

随着《欧洲合同条约》于 2025 年通过，该条约将对争议进行裁决，其作用也将扩大。该条约将保护工人免受基于年龄、国籍和性别等一系列受保护特征的歧视。

TADM处理的与工会成员之间的纠纷数量从2021年的3031起增加到2025年的4396起。2025年，其中86%的纠纷得到解决。2026年的数据尚未公布。

全国职工总会助理秘书长兼法律总监郑国强表示，最近发布的这些文件主要是因为需要向雇主和雇员阐明ECT在其判决中一直适用的原则。

他说，他和全国职工总会从 2018 年起就开始游说出版这本书。

Tay补充说，这些判决对于许多员工在向工会或TADM寻求帮助时所面临的问题来说，具有“风向标”意义。

他举了第五个判决的例子，其中一名 63 岁的工人在达到退休年龄三个月后被解雇，并赢得了两项不当解雇索赔和获得就业援助金的索赔。

法官裁定雇主违反了合同，该合同规定工人有权在终止雇佣关系时获得两个月的通知期或代通知金，并且雇主还违反了再就业规定，因此该工人获得了 26,350 美元的赔偿。

Tay表示，其他判决涉及因绩效问题解雇员工；考虑到员工健康和安全而进行的推定解雇；以及产假和保护等问题。

建设性解雇是指雇员因雇主的行为而别无选择而辞职——法律将此类辞职视为解雇。

Tay指出，在所有判决中，ECT始终提及关于再就业和不当解雇的三方指导方针。

这些指导方针不具有法律约束力，由工会、雇主和政府共同商定，并于 2024 年实施。

Dentons Rodyk 律师事务所的合伙人 Sean Sim 表示，这些判决共同表明了《雇佣和赔偿法》如何解释“正当理由或借口”、比例原则以及雇主和雇员的举证责任等概念。

“有些理由超出了三方准则中明确规定的范围，因此需要密切关注不断发展的判例法，”他补充道。

律师事务所 Helmsman 的董事 Matthew Teo 表示，这些规定还明确了对雇主的最低标准或做法要求。

摩根路易斯律师事务所高级律师凯利·王表示，他们的出版物应该有助于提高一致性，让审裁员和各方能够了解类似问题以前是如何分析的。

Nair, Jen & Tan 律师事务所的董事 Jennifer Chih 也提醒说，虽然目前为止的讨论大多集中在员工成功起诉雇主的案例上，但这并不意味着新加坡的劳动法已经变得更加有利于员工。“每个案件都取决于其自身的事实。”

她表示，员工了解自己的雇佣文件非常重要，并且要妥善保存任何可能在发生纠纷时相关的记录，例如绩效评估、警告以及与雇主的关键沟通记录。

费利西亚说，她收集到的证据让她有信心提起诉讼。

“当你开始感觉到事情不对劲的时候，你需要有足够的证据来证明你的观点，”她说，但她也警告说，不要在遇到麻烦的第一时间就抱怨，因为问题应该首先一对一地提出。

虽然这些判决对解释提供了清晰的思路，但沈先生补充说，不应将它们视为改写新加坡的普通雇佣法。

他表示，根据普通法，出发点仍然是雇佣合同以及双方的合同终止权。

新加坡主要的雇佣法——《雇佣法令》目前正在修订中。

摩根路易斯律师事务所的黄表示，最值得关注的领域是裁员。

她指出，人力部表示，此次审查正在考虑如何加大对被裁工人的支持力度，包括是否有必要对雇主施加更强有力的义务。

政府还在考虑是否应该提前强制裁员通知期，以及如何就裁员的定义提供更明确的指导。

这些问题在 10 月份的议会会议上进行了广泛的辩论，此前 2026 年第二季度的裁员人数激增至 4,620 人，这是自新冠疫情爆发以来的最高数字。

10 月 30 日公布的初步数据显示，第三季度裁员人数仍居高不下，达到 4,800 人。

7 月份公布的一项判决直接涉及了这个问题。

ECT 认为，《雇佣法》第 45 条（禁止服务年限不足两年的工人领取裁员补偿金）并没有赋予其他人获得这些补偿金的合法权利。

仲裁庭表示，只有雇佣合同或集体协议中规定了此类赔偿，才应支付此类赔偿金。

Dentons Rodyk 的 Sim 表示，更广泛地说，此次审查是一个机会，可以考虑《就业法》是否继续在不同类别的工人和保护措施之间划定正确的界限。

这可能适用于像费利西亚这样的员工，她现在在朋友的公司工作。

近年来，她曾两次在任职约六个月后被解雇，这与她过去担任三到五年的职位截然不同。

由于担心再次经历同样的流程，她现在在面试时建议签订六个月的合同，因为这似乎更符合她搬迁办公室方面的专长。

Sim表示，工作的性质已经发生了很大的变化，新加坡已经不得不为平台工作者制定单独的法律框架，他们不被视为雇员，但根据《平台工作者法》获得特定的保护。

“这说明，要确保就业保护措施能够跟上日益多样化的工作安排，面临着更广泛的挑战。”

就业索赔法庭