A few days' delay in his payout was not enough to save his dismissal claim
A manager paid salary in lieu of notice could not bring a wrongful dismissal claim, Tribunal Magistrate Khoo May Ann ruled on 3 August 2026.
The case turned on whether many managers and executives can reach Singapore's Employment Claims Tribunal: were they a "relevant employee" when they were let go?
The manager joined a software development company on 28 April 2025 on a contract dated 1 April 2025. He was paid above $17,000, a rate that applied even during his probation, and held a role the tribunal found to be managerial. On 24 October 2025 the company terminated him by letter the same day, after five months and 27 days of service, less than six months. The letter stated that he would be paid salary in lieu of notice, referred to as SILON. He filed a mediation request at the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management on 27 October 2025, and the company paid the SILON on 31 October 2025.
Under section 14(2A) of the Employment Act, only a "relevant employee" may file a wrongful dismissal claim. A manager or executive qualifies if dismissed with notice, or dismissed without notice but paid SILON, provided the person served at least six months. A manager or executive dismissed without notice and without SILON also qualifies, with no minimum service. Employees who are not managers or executives qualify regardless.
The manager argued that his status should be fixed at the date he filed for mediation, before the SILON reached him, so he counted as dismissed without it. The tribunal disagreed. It found the company had committed in writing to paying SILON in the termination letter, and that the manager's own email of 30 October 2025 asked when the payment would be credited, which was inconsistent with a claim that he had been dismissed without it.
"On the facts of this case, I was of the view that it would be artificial to make a finding of fact that the Claimant was terminated without SILON", the tribunal wrote, noting he had received and accepted the payment in full by 31 October 2025.
The tribunal also read the provision against its purpose, observing that "it appears that the purpose is to protect vulnerable employees who have been terminated without notice and who have not been paid any SILON", and that a highly paid manager dismissed with SILON was not in that vulnerable position. Accepting the timing argument, it added, could produce absurd results, ignoring the days a company and its bank need to process payment.
The manager had also suggested he was not paid within three days as required by section 22 of the Act, but dropped that argument at trial, and the tribunal held the delay would not have made the dismissal one without SILON in any event.
The tribunal found the manager was an employee in a managerial position, dismissed without notice but paid SILON, who had served less than six months, and so was not a "relevant employee" under any limb of section 14(2A). It dismissed the claim, ECT 11477, for lack of jurisdiction. Because the claim failed on jurisdiction, the tribunal did not decide whether to consolidate a separate contractual claim the manager had filed over a hiring bonus, and it made no orders as to costs or disbursements.
The tribunal stressed that "this is not a decision on the merits of the Claimant's case in ECT 11477." On the tribunal's reading, a manager paid in lieu of notice can claim wrongful dismissal only after six months' service.
