Woman wrongfully dismissed because of her pregnancy and maternity leave awarded S$19,800

The woman, who had a good performance appraisal, was told over the phone by her new boss a few days before delivering that she did not fit into his vision of the team.

The woman was hospitalised for pregnancy complications in her last trimester but continued to receive requests for phone calls and a meeting. (File photo: iStock)

This audio is generated by an AI tool.

SINGAPORE: A woman who was wrongfully dismissed because of her pregnancy and upcoming maternity leave was awarded S$19,800 (US$15,520) by an Employment Claims Tribunal (ECT) on Tuesday (Sep 22).

This sum comprises three months of the woman's gross pay on top of another three months' pay for harm caused to her.

The woman, named only as C in the judgment, had received a good performance appraisal before giving birth, but was not given any increment and was later told she did not fit into the new boss' vision of the team.

Parties are usually not named in ECT judgments as the hearings are conducted in private.

The new boss, named as Mr EC, kept trying to call her although she was on hospitalisation leave for pregnancy complications and eventually told her over a call that her employment would be terminated when her maternity leave ended.

Tribunal magistrate Lee Li Choon said this case sheds light on the kind of adverse workplace culture that working women who choose to have children may encounter from certain employers.

The woman had brought a claim for compensation for her dismissal, saying it was without just cause or excuse because it was discriminatory.

She began working as an executive for the unnamed company on Apr 21, 2021.

In March 2023, C's business unit came under a new director, Mr EC, who had recently joined the company.

According to a timeline of events set out in the judgment, C had a one-on-one lunch with Mr EC in April 2023, during which she told him she was pregnant and due in October that year.

She said she was considering whether to take a few months of sabbatical leave, as provided for in the company's human resources handbook, in order to care for her newborn.

In July 2023, C had her performance appraisal meeting with Mr EC, as well as the previous director of her business unit, and Ms JY, a new director of her business unit.

Ms JY described C's performance for the period from July 2022 to June 2023 as "excellent", with a "healthy growth mindset". She also said C had "an impressive ability to take on multi-disciplinary projects that are outside of her niche".

Mr EC concurred with this appraisal and said C's performance was good.

In September 2023, C submitted her maternity leave form with the date fields left blank. She explained, when asked by HR personnel, that her child's date of birth was not yet known, and that she was still considering whether to apply for sabbatical leave on top of maternity leave.

On Sep 13, 2023, C was hospitalised for pregnancy-related complications and high blood pressure.

At the time, she was 36 weeks' pregnant with her first child. She told the company's HR personnel that she would be on hospitalisation leave due to pregnancy-related complications.

She continued to be on hospitalisation leave until she gave birth.

On Sep 18, 2023, Ms JY told C that Mr EC was not keen to have C return to work.

On Oct 2, 2023, Mr EC sent C a message indicating that he wished to speak to her.

C asked what it was about, saying she would like to focus on her pregnancy and not think about work as much as possible.

Mr EC said it was "regarding the plans after".

He asked again about the "quick chat" a day later and C obliged. They had a phone call on Oct 4, 2023, which was recorded entirely by C's husband.

On Oct 5, 2023, C was asked to go to the office for a meeting. She declined, saying she wished to focus on her health and pregnancy.

After this call, she sent an email stating that she was on hospitalisation leave until she gave birth.

She said she did not see any need to discuss the conversation she had with Mr EC the previous day.

She stated that if Mr EC chose to terminate her when her maternity leave ended, she would like it in black and white so she could start looking for a job.

No response was given to this email.

C gave birth on Oct 11, 2023 and began her maternity leave, which was to end on Jan 25, 2024.

A day after giving birth, C re-submitted her maternity form with the date fields completed and informed HR via email that she would be commencing her maternity leave.

She resigned on Dec 21, 2023 with one month's notice. She later filed a claim saying she had been forced to resign while still on maternity leave.

The magistrate said the crucial piece of evidence was the phone call C had with Mr EC on Oct 4, 2023.

According to C, she was told that she did not fit into Mr EC's new vision for his team and that her employment would be terminated immediately after her maternity leave.

She claimed that if she wished to return to work at the company after her maternity leave, she would have to undergo an interview and be re-assessed by Mr EC over her suitability.

The company's interpretation of the call was that Mr EC was merely seeking to clarify C's plans after her maternity leave.

The firm said C had earlier expressed interest in taking sabbatical leave for an unspecified duration, and the call was made to clarify this.

The company said the call was made in good faith to understand C's intentions, and that Mr EC had merely suggested that "it would be cleaner to terminate the employment after the maternity".

The magistrate noted that C had not submitted any formal application for sabbatical or no-pay leave as of the date of the phone call.

Ms Lee found that the company had no reason to make that unsolicited phone call through Mr EC, as there was no pressing matter regarding C's sabbatical leave that required any decision on the company's part.

She also found that the call was not made in good faith.

The company did not call Mr EC as its witness. During the hearing, Ms JY testified that just before she sent C the message giving her the heads-up, Mr EC had asked her how C would react if he were to tell her that she did not fit into his vision for the team.

Ms JY said she got the impression from Mr EC that C would be told to go upon returning from maternity leave.

Ms Lee found that Mr EC had already formed the intention to terminate C's employment immediately after her maternity leave when Mr EC spoke to Ms JY in September 2023.

Even if Mr EC had mistakenly thought that C intended to take an extended period of sabbatical leave, he had already become aware before the phone call that C intended to return to work immediately after her maternity leave.

This is because C said over the phone on Oct 4, 2023 that if all goes well and the child was healthy, she would make arrangements in order to come back to the office.

Pointing to excerpts from the phone call, Ms Lee said it was "abundantly clear" that C was essentially being told that her employment would be terminated at the end of her maternity leave.

The only concession was that the company was "allowing her" to enjoy her paid maternity leave.

For example, Mr EC said: "So I think the long story short is that I have not had a chance to see during our time working together the value that you can bring to the new vision of the team that I'm envisioning."

He also said: "My preference which I would like to discuss with you, is that I feel it would be cleaner to terminate after the maternity, right, rather than leave things up in the air, and so that you can also be fully focused on your family time, like, you know, not having to worry about that rearrangement at that point.”

Mr EC added: "But if you do wish to come back at that time, I would say it would be based on new expectations that I would align with you on. And of course, the prerequisite that the team has the available spot and need at that time.

"But basically, I would still put you, if you are really keen to do so, and like, for example, based on even your personal situation that you really need to help to get back to work, you know, in that case, I will take all these factors into consideration and also basically be objective in giving you a fair chance to come back. And even if not, you know, I would maybe on a personal level try to see what I can do to help, you know, help you get more opportunities."

Ms Lee said the evidence showed that C's performance had been assessed as good before she went on hospitalisation leave.

This stood in direct contrast to Mr EC's assertion that she did not fit into his vision for the team.

Ms Lee said it was clear that the real reason for the intended dismissal was C's impending "hiatus" or absence from work due to a combination of her hospitalisation leave and maternity leave.

Both periods of leave were her employment rights and entitlements, and dismissing her for exercising these rights constitutes a dismissal on wrongful ground, said Ms Lee.

"Such a reason also amounted to discrimination against C on account of her pregnancy and maternity leave," she added.

During the hearing, it was revealed that C had been largely working from home during her pregnancy.

After her forced resignation, C sought employment offering similar flexibility given her needs as a new mother, but was unable to find such opportunities within the small industry.

The magistrate also noted that C had not been given any salary increment when one was due in July 2023, unlike other employees in the company, despite her good performance grading.

She awarded the maximum three months of her gross rate of pay amounting to S$9,900. On top of this, she added another three months' pay for the harm caused to the woman as well as the aggravating factors.

Ms Lee said the woman was informed of her impending termination in a manner that was "both degrading and deeply insensitive".

She was effectively given a message that she was "not worthy of continued employment simply because she was giving birth and going on maternity leave", said Ms Lee.

"This would have caused her tremendous anxiety about her financial situation and job security during an exceptionally vulnerable period in her life," she added.

Get our pick of top stories and thought-provoking articles in your inbox

Stay updated with notifications for breaking news and our best stories

Join our channel for the top reads for the day on your preferred chat app

这位女士的绩效考核结果良好，但在汇报工作前几天，她的新老板打电话告诉她，她不符合他对团队的设想。

这名女子在妊娠晚期因并发症住院，但仍不断收到要求她打电话和见面的请求。（图片来源：iStock）

这段音频由人工智能工具生成。

新加坡：一名女子因怀孕和即将休产假而被错误解雇，周二（9 月 22 日），就业索赔法庭 (ECT) 裁定其获得 19,800 新元（15,520 美元）的赔偿。

这笔款项包括该女子三个月的总收入，以及因她所受伤害而获得的三个月赔偿。

判决书中只称该女子为 C，她在生孩子之前获得了良好的绩效评估，但没有得到任何加薪，后来被告知她不符合新老板对团队的设想。

由于电汇裁决的听证会是私下进行的，因此通常不会在判决中指明当事人的姓名。

新老板名叫 EC 先生，尽管她因怀孕并发症正在住院休产假，但他还是不断试图给她打电话，最终在电话中告诉她，她的产假结束后，她的雇佣关系将被终止。

审裁处法官李丽春表示，此案揭示了选择生育的职业女性可能会在某些雇主那里遇到的不利职场文化。

该女子就其被解雇一事提出赔偿请求，称其解雇毫无正当理由或借口，属于歧视行为。

她于 2021 年 4 月 21 日开始在这家未具名的公司担任高管。

2023 年 3 月，C 的业务部门迎来了一位新董事 EC 先生，他最近刚加入公司。

根据判决书中列出的事件时间线，C 于 2023 年 4 月与 EC 先生共进午餐，期间她告诉 EC 先生她怀孕了，预产期是当年 10 月。

她说，她正在考虑是否按照公司人力资源手册的规定，休几个月的学术休假来照顾她的新生儿。

2023 年 7 月，C 与 EC 先生（她所在业务部门的前任主管）和 JY 女士（她所在业务部门的新任主管）进行了绩效考核会议。

JY女士形容C在2022年7月至2023年6月期间的表现“非常出色”，并展现出“健康的成长型思维”。她还表示，C“拥有令人印象深刻的能力，能够承担超出其专业领域的多学科项目”。

EC先生同意这一评价，并表示C的表现很好。

2023年9月，C提交了产假申请表，但日期栏留空。当人力资源人员询问时，她解释说，她孩子的出生日期尚未确定，并且她仍在考虑是否在产假之外申请学术休假。

2023年9月13日，C因妊娠并发症和高血压住院。

当时，她已怀孕36周，怀的是第一胎。她告诉公司的人力资源部门，由于妊娠并发症，她将请住院假。

她一直休病假直到分娩。

2023年9月18日，JY女士告诉C，EC先生不太愿意让C回去工作。

2023年10月2日，EC先生向C女士发送了一条消息，表示他想和她谈谈。

C 询问事情的来龙去脉，并表示她想专注于怀孕，尽量不去想工作。

EC先生说，这是“关于之后的计划”。

一天后，他再次询问了“简短交谈”的事宜，C同意了。他们于2023年10月4日通了电话，通话全程被C的丈夫录音。

2023年10月5日，C被要求到办公室参加会议。她拒绝了，说她想专注于自己的健康和怀孕。

通话结束后，她发了一封电子邮件，表示她将休病假直到分娩。

她说她觉得没有必要讨论前一天与EC先生的谈话内容。

她表示，如果EC先生选择在她产假结束后解雇她，她希望有书面文件证明，以便她可以开始找工作。

这封邮件未收到回复。

C 于 2023 年 10 月 11 日分娩，并开始休产假，产假​​将于 2024 年 1 月 25 日结束。

分娩后第二天，C 重新提交了产假表格，填写了日期字段，并通过电子邮件通知人力资源部她将开始休产假。

她于2023年12月21日辞职，提前一个月通知。之后她提出申诉，称自己在产假期间被迫辞职。

地方法官表示，关键证据是 C 在 2023 年 10 月 4 日与 EC 先生的通话记录。

据 C 称，她被告知她不符合 EC 先生对其团队的新愿景，并且她的工作将在产假结束后立即终止。

她声称，如果她想在产假结束后回到公司工作，她必须接受面试，并由 EC 先生重新评估她是否适合这份工作。

公司对这次通话的解读是，EC 先生只是想弄清楚 C 在产假结束后的计划。

该公司表示，C 此前曾表示有兴趣休假一段时间，但具体时长未定，此次通话是为了澄清此事。

该公司表示，打电话是出于好意，想了解 C 的意图，而 EC 先生只是建议“产假结束后终止雇佣关系会更妥当”。

地方法官注意到，截至电话通话当日，C 尚未提交任何正式的学术休假或无薪休假申请。

李女士发现，该公司没有理由通过EC先生打那个未经请求的电话，因为C的休假并没有什么紧迫的事情需要公司做出任何决定。

她还发现，这通电话并非出于善意。

该公司没有传唤EC先生作证。听证会上，JY女士作证说，就在她给C发信息提前告知情况之前，EC先生曾问她，如果他告诉C她不符合他对团队的设想，C会作何反应。

JY女士说，她从EC先生那里得到的印象是，C先生产假结束后会被告知离开。

李女士发现，EC先生在2023年9月与JY女士谈话时，就已经打算在C女士产假结束后立即终止她的雇佣关系。

即使 EC 先生误以为 C 打算休较长时间的学术休假，但在接到电话之前，他已经知道 C 打算在产假结束后立即返回工作岗位。

这是因为 C 在 2023 年 10 月 4 日的电话中表示，如果一切顺利，孩子健康，她会安排好一切，以便返回办公室。

李女士指出电话录音中的一些片段，表示“非常清楚”C女士实际上是被告知，她的产假结束后将被解雇。

公司做出的唯一让步是“允许”她享受带薪产假。

例如，EC 先生说：“所以，长话短说，在我们共事的这段时间里，我还没有机会看到你能为我所设想的团队新愿景带来什么价值。”

他还说：“我个人倾向于在产假结束后终止婚姻关系，这样会更妥当，而不是让事情悬而未决，这样你也可以全身心地投入到家庭生活中，不必再为重新安排的事情操心。”

EC先生补充道：“但如果您届时确实希望回归，我想说的是，这需要基于一些新的期望，而这些期望需要我们双方达成一致。当然，前提是球队届时有空缺职位并且需要您。”

“但基本上，如果你真的非常渴望重返工作岗位，比如，基于你个人的情况，你确实需要帮助才能回去工作，那么我还是会考虑你的，我会把所有这些因素都考虑进去，并且客观地给你一个公平的机会。即使最终没能成功，我也会尽我所能，看看我能做些什么来帮助你，帮你获得更多的机会。”

李女士表示，证据表明，C在住院休假前，其工作表现被评为良好。

这与EC先生的说法截然相反，他认为她不符合他对团队的设想。

李女士表示，很明显，此次解雇的真正原因是C即将“休假”或因住院假和产假而缺勤。

李女士表示，这两段休假都是她的雇佣权利和应享待遇，因她行使这些权利而解雇她构成非法解雇。

她补充说：“这样的理由也构成了对C的歧视，因为她怀孕并休了产假。”

听证会上透露，C 在怀孕期间主要在家工作。

被迫辞职后，C 想找一份工作，希望工作时间能像她作为新妈妈的需求一样灵活，但她在这个小行业里找不到这样的机会。

地方法官还指出，尽管 C 的绩效评级良好，但与公司其他员工不同，她在 2023 年 7 月应得加薪时却没有获得任何加薪。

她判决支付其三个月最高工资，即9900新元。除此之外，她还因该女子所受伤害以及其他加重情节，额外支付了三个月的工资。

李女士表示，该女子被告知即将被解雇的方式“既有辱人格又极其冷漠无情”。

李女士说，她实际上被灌输了一种观念，即“仅仅因为她要生孩子、要休产假，她就不配继续受雇”。

她补充说：“这会让她在人生中极其脆弱的时期，对自己的财务状况和工作保障产生极大的焦虑。”

订阅我们的邮件，即可获取精选热点新闻和引人深思的文章。

订阅通知，第一时间获取突发新闻和精彩报道。

加入我们的频道，即可在您常用的聊天应用上获取当日热门文章。