- A woman was awarded maximum compensation of around 19 lakh by the Employment Claims Tribunals
- She was dismissed after six months on probation without clear communication of performance standards
- The employer failed to prove her poor performance as required under company policies
A woman has been awarded the maximum compensation (around 19 lakh) available under the Employment Claims Tribunals (ECT) after a magistrate ruled that she was dismissed in a "sudden and unjustified" manner at the end of her six-month probation. In a judgement released on July 28, the tribunal found that the employer failed to justify its claim that the audit manager had not met the required performance standards, Straits Times reported. However, it rejected her allegations that she was dismissed because she did not speak Korean or because she had raised concerns about the company's internal audit practices.
Fired after six months on the job
The woman joined the company as an audit manager in April 2025 and was placed on a six-month probation period. As the probation came to an end, the company informed her that her employment would not continue, citing poor performance.
Disputing the decision, she approached the Employment Claims Tribunals, arguing that she had never received any verbal or written warnings about her work. She also said she had been evaluated against performance standards that were never explained to her.
The employee further claimed she had been targeted after raising concerns over proposed changes to the company's internal audit reporting structure and alleged she faced discrimination because she did not speak Korean, despite English being the company's working language.
The identities of both the employee and the company were withheld in the judgement. Both represented themselves during the hearings held in May and June 2026.
The employer failed to prove poor performance
The company argued that the dismissal was based solely on performance, saying employees on probation were required to achieve an overall performance score of at least 80% and an average competency rating of three out of five across 10 key competencies.
The audit manager received a performance score of 71% and an average competency rating of 2.4. However, Tribunal Magistrate Joel Tan found that the employer failed to establish that those scores accurately reflected her performance.
The judgement noted that the employee's supervisor admitted she had not explained the competency rating system at the start of employment or conducted the documented performance reviews required under the company's own probation policy.
As a result, the employee was assessed against expectations that had never been clearly communicated. The magistrate observed that she had effectively been left to navigate vague qualitative standards without knowing what was required to pass probation.
Criticism lacked evidence
The tribunal also found that many of the employer's criticisms were either unsupported by evidence or related to expectations that had never been properly communicated. While the company alleged that the employee had missed deadlines, failed to follow instructions and submitted work with formatting issues, the magistrate noted that the supervisor had not criticised the actual quality of her audit work. Instead, most concerns focused on administrative and procedural matters.
Although the magistrate acknowledged that the employee had areas where she could improve, he ruled that it was unfair to dismiss her based on performance standards that had not been adequately explained.
Maximum compensation awarded
The tribunal rejected the employee's claims of language discrimination and whistleblower retaliation, finding insufficient evidence to support either allegation. However, it concluded that she had been wrongfully dismissed and awarded her the maximum compensation permitted under the ECT.
The woman, who earned S$11,500 a month, was entitled to three months' salary, or S$34,500, for lost income. However, because the tribunal's compensation is capped at S$30,000 (around 19 lakh), that was the amount awarded.
Magistrate Tan also noted that, if not for the statutory cap, he would have awarded an additional two months' salary for the distress caused by the wrongful dismissal, bringing the total compensation to S$57,500. He emphasised that employers cannot expect employees to meet performance standards that were never clearly communicated or properly assessed.
