Covert recording of meeting justified director's dismissal: tribunal

A managing director who secretly recorded a meeting with her bosses while serving her notice period has lost her wrongful dismissal claim at Singapore's Employment Claims Tribunals (ECT).

Tribunal Magistrate Kerry Chan ruled that the covert recording amounted to misconduct serious enough to justify summary dismissal under Section 14(1) of the Employment Act. 

"As there have been no reported judgments in Singapore that squarely consider this issue, I consider it appropriate to publish this judgment to set out my reasons in full," the magistrate wrote.

Recording discovered during notice period

The employee had been managing director of a public relations firm since May 2024. On 23 February 2026, she was told her employment was being terminated without cause. She chose to serve her three-month notice period, which would end on 22 May.

Days later, the firm's president raised concerns about her conduct, including her contact with a client and a colleague. A warning letter followed, stating that any further misconduct would result in immediate termination without notice.

On 3 March, the employee attended a scheduled weekly meeting with the president and the firm's fractional chief financial officer and chief human resources officer. She was to use the meeting to respond to the warning. 

But while she was showing the president a WhatsApp message, the president noticed her phone was recording and asked her to delete the file. The employee agreed.

The firm issued a show cause letter the next day and dismissed her for cause on 6 March.

The employee argued that she recorded the meeting only to help prepare her written response and that no confidential information was discussed. She also claimed the firm used the recording to avoid paying her for the rest of her notice period.

Tribunal weighs UK factors

Magistrate Chan drew on factors set out by the UK Employment Appeal Tribunal in Phoenix House Ltd v Stockman: the purpose of the recording, the employee's blameworthiness, what was recorded, and the employer's attitude.

The tribunal found the employee's blameworthiness "on the lower end." 

She had never been told not to record meetings and did not try to conceal it. Given the circumstances, she also "may not have thought to expressly ask if she could make a recording."

However, the tribunal found that the meeting was part of a regular series covering business matters, including her ongoing handover. Confidential information would therefore likely have been discussed.

"It would be entirely speculative to say, as was the Claimant's position, that no business matters would have been discussed at that meeting," the decision read.

The tribunal could not determine the recording's purpose because the file had been deleted. It also noted that the employee had been reading from prepared notes: "It is not clear why a recording was also required for this purpose."

The firm's seniority and confidentiality concerns proved decisive. 

The magistrate stated that "some acts of an employee are themselves sufficient to destroy the trust and confidence in an employment relationship regardless of what the employee's intentions may have been."

"The very act of the Claimant covertly recording the 3 March Meeting was sufficient to destroy the trust and confidence in this employment relationship," she added.

Due inquiry satisfied

The tribunal also rejected claims that the firm's inquiry was predetermined. The employee had been given just under a day to respond, and the firm made its decision within hours of receiving her response.

"The length of time an employer takes to review and consider an employee's response before coming to its decision in the inquiry process is not the determinant of whether due inquiry has been carried out," the magistrate wrote. She noted there had been "two levels of review" before the decision was made final.

The tribunal also found no concrete evidence that the firm had used the recording to avoid paying the employee's remaining notice period.

Magistrate Chan cautioned against reading the ruling as a blanket rule: "Each case will turn on its own facts, and the balance of factors may lead to a different outcome in different circumstances."

Both parties represented themselves and were ordered to bear their own costs.

'Trust is the foundation'

Patrick Tay, assistant secretary-general of the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC), commented on the ruling in a post on LinkedIn. 

He said it was the first local decision he knew of that squarely examined whether covertly recording an internal meeting justified dismissal without notice.

His key takeaway was that "the act of covert recording can be enough, even without bad intent," noting that the tribunal reached this view even though it found the employee's blameworthiness was on the lower end.

But Tay stressed that the ruling was "not a blanket rule" and that context decided the outcome. He pointed to the confidential nature of the meeting, the firm's handling of sensitive client information, and the employee's seniority.

On the inquiry process, he said the decision showed that due inquiry "is about fairness and not speed."

He urged employees who need an accurate record of a discussion to ask for consent or request written minutes. 

"Don't record secretly, even with good intentions," he wrote.

For employers, Tay advised: "Spell out your recording and confidentiality policies clearly, and always carry out proper due inquiry before dismissing for misconduct."

"In short and as in all employment relationships, trust is the foundation and transparency protects both sides," he said.