Tribunal orders $26,350 payout after employer skips notice, re-employment duties
A Singapore employer has been ordered to pay a former area manager $26,350 after a tribunal found it had wrongfully dismissed him and failed to meet its re-employment obligations under the Retirement and Re-employment Act 1993 (RRA).
The Employment Claims Tribunal (ECT) ruled that an employer has no power, whether under contract, statute, or general law, to terminate an employee immediately upon reaching the statutory retirement age without providing notice or salary in lieu thereof.
Tribunal Magistrate Joel Tan allowed both of the claimant's claims in full: $11,600 for wrongful dismissal and $14,750 as an employment assistance payment (EAP).
A rushed process, an abrupt dismissal
The claimant, an area manager, turned 63, the statutory retirement age at the material time, in March 2025. His employer made no re-employment offer before or around that date, and he continued working as normal.
It was only on June 8, 2025, after the claimant himself raised the issue by email, that the employer initiated re-employment discussions.
Two days later, it offered him a position as a training executive at a reduced monthly salary of $4,000, down from his gross wages of $6,428, a cut of approximately 38%. The contract on offer was for six months, not the one-year minimum prescribed by the RRA.
When the claimant queried the shortened term, the employer maintained the six-month duration was justified by its ongoing restructuring. It gave him until June 17, 2025, to decide.
The claimant, who was on medical leave, asked for an extension to June 24. The employer refused, saying it was "unable to extend this deadline further."
The claimant rejected the offer the same day, and the employer terminated his employment with immediate effect the following morning without notice or payment in lieu.
Tribunal's findings
On the wrongful dismissal claim, Magistrate Tan was unequivocal, stressing the employer's belief that reaching retirement age entitled it to end employment immediately was mistaken.
"No such power exists — whether under contract, statute, or the general law," he wrote in the ruling.
"Hence, by issuing the Notice of Termination, the respondent had effectively renounced the performance of its obligations under the employment contract and was therefore in repudiatory breach of contract."
On the EAP claim, the tribunal found the employer had failed to discharge its re-employment obligations on two counts. The six-month offer fell below the statutory one-year minimum under the RRA, and the claimant had not agreed to a shorter period. The process itself was also found wanting.
Tan noted that re-employment consultations, which the Tripartite Guidelines recommend should begin at least six months before retirement, were instead compressed into ten days, conducted entirely by email, and concluded with a non-negotiable deadline.
The claimant's request for more time, made while on medical leave, was denied.
"Where concerns are raised about a proposed re-employment arrangement, they call for proper engagement rather than a 'take-it-or-leave-it' response," Tan wrote.
"In a case of this nature, a face-to-face meeting would ordinarily have been appropriate, to explain the rationale for the proposed terms and to afford the employee a meaningful opportunity to articulate his concerns."
The tribunal further noted that the employer had announced internally that the claimant would be stepping away from his area management duties before he had even responded to the re-employment offer, a step Tan described as "premature."
"It reinforced the impression that the outcome had effectively been settled before the consultation process had run its course," the ruling read.
The respondent did not dispute the quantum of the EAP claimed, and the tribunal allowed both claims in full, also ordering the employer to pay $250 in costs and $70 in disbursements.
