Manager wins compensation after firm failed to justify no-reason termination.
A Singapore Employment Claims Tribunal has ordered a construction firm to pay a former senior manager $11,437.50 in compensation after finding his dismissal lacked sufficient justification, even as it rejected his primary claim that he was let go because of a mental health condition.
The claimant, identified only as Mr C, joined the respondent company (RPL) as a Senior Construction Manager in July 2024 on a monthly salary of $9,000.
He was confirmed after probation, received an annual bonus of $10,011 in December 2024, and had his salary raised to $9,150 in January 2025, a trajectory that would later weigh in his favour before the tribunal.
Mental health challenges
In June 2025, Mr C took medical leave and was referred to a psychiatrist. A doctor's memorandum issued on 11 June stated that he had been diagnosed with major depression and anxiety, described as "likely precipitated by long working hours and insomnia." A second memorandum dated 30 June found him fit to work but recommended shorter hours to prevent a depressive relapse.
RPL responded by moving Mr C off his construction site assignment and into a tender team at company headquarters, where he worked regular hours.
On 19 August 2025, the day after a tender submission was lodged, RPL issued him a "Cessation of Employment" letter citing only the contractual termination clause. No reason was given, either in writing or at the meeting where the decision was communicated. His employment ended the following day.
Mr C brought a claim under section 14(2) of the Employment Act 1968, alleging his dismissal was linked to his mental health disclosure and amounted to wrongful dismissal. He sought $18,000 in compensation, describing the sum as a conservative figure within the tribunal's monetary jurisdiction.
The tribunal's ruling
Tribunal Magistrate Jared Kang Chern Wey rejected Mr C's central allegation of mental health discrimination or retaliation.
The tribunal accepted RPL's evidence that, following the diagnosis, the company had sought medical information, arranged a welfare engagement, encouraged use of its Employee Assistance Programme, and honoured his medical leave before assigning him to lighter duties at headquarters.
"The evidence did not make it more likely than not that Mr C's condition or its disclosure caused the dismissal," Kang wrote in the ruling. "I therefore rejected his positive case of discrimination and retaliation."
However, the magistrate found the dismissal wrongful on a separate, broader ground.
Assessing the overall employment record, Kang noted that RPL had confirmed Mr C, paid him a bonus and salary increase, and continued assigning him meaningful work right up to the tender submission.
Against that record, RPL's post-hoc performance concerns, which were largely uncorroborated by contemporaneous documentation and advanced by witnesses who had not directly handled the disputed work, carried limited weight.
"The proved and operative material therefore consisted of a confined shortfall and some concerns of uncertain extent," Kang found.
"Against the objective employment record and continued assignment, that material was insufficiently weighty to make dismissal a just response."
The magistrate awarded $11,437.50 as compensation for harm, calculated at 1.25 months' salary after a reduction for a single established performance shortfall involving concrete casting works on a prior project. However, Kang made no award for loss of income, finding that Mr C had not established a sufficient causal link between the dismissal and his subsequent unemployment.
The tribunal also declined to order an apology or agreed employment statement, finding it lacked the power to compel such relief.
Broader legal significance
The case carries significance beyond its facts. Magistrate Kang used the judgment to address what he described as fundamental uncertainties in Singapore's wrongful dismissal framework, identifying "four connected failures" stemming from the 2018 transfer of jurisdiction over wrongful dismissal claims to the Employment Claims Tribunals.
The judgment draws a firm distinction between contractual compliance and statutory protection: an employer who terminates with notice or salary in lieu in accordance with a contractual clause may still be found to have dismissed an employee without just cause or excuse under section 14(2).
"A dismissal effected with notice or salary in lieu and without a stated reason must accordingly be decided by the approach set out," Kang wrote, noting that contractual regularity does not insulate an employer from the statutory inquiry.
