SINGAPORE – A software company manager who earned more than $17,000 a month and alleged wrongful dismissal failed to have his case heard by the Employment Claims Tribunals (ECT), after a magistrate ruled that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear his complaint.
In a grounds of decision released on Aug 3, tribunal magistrate Khoo May Ann found that the employee did not qualify as a “relevant employee” with a statutory right to bring a wrongful dismissal claim under the Employment Act before the ECT.
The tribunal did not decide whether the employer had acted unfairly in dismissing him.
The dispute centred on whether the manager, a master’s degree holder who had worked for the company for less than six months, fell within a narrow category of employees entitled to pursue wrongful dismissal claims.
He joined the software and application company on April 28, 2025, under an employment contract that described his role as a manager.
His employment was terminated in a letter sent by e-mail on Oct 24, a few days short of six months.
The company dismissed him without requiring him to serve notice, but said in the termination letter that it would pay him salary in lieu of notice.
The payment was made a week later, on Oct 31.
Three days after his dismissal, on Oct 27, the man filed a mediation request with the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM). TADM was set up by the Ministry of Manpower, the National Trades Union Congress and the Singapore National Employers Federation to help employers and employees resolve disputes through mediation.
On Nov 24, the manager filed a wrongful dismissal claim with the ECT.
The identities of the claimant and his former employer were redacted in the judgment. Both represented themselves during the tribunal hearings in June and July.
Under the Employment Act, managers and executives who have worked for an employer for at least six months may generally bring wrongful dismissal claims.
Those with less than six months’ service can do so only if they are dismissed without notice and without receiving salary in lieu of notice.
The man argued that he should be regarded as someone dismissed without notice and without salary in lieu of notice because he had not yet received the payment when he filed for mediation on Oct 27.
The company countered that he did not qualify because it had always intended to pay him salary in lieu of notice and had done so before the tribunal claim was filed.
The delay, it said, was due to payroll processing.
The magistrate agreed.
She noted that the termination letter had “unequivocally stated” that the company would pay salary in lieu of notice.
The magistrate also pointed out that the claimant himself had acknowledged in an e-mail sent on Oct 30 that the company intended to make the payment and had asked when it would be credited to his account.
His e-mail was “inconsistent with his position that he was dismissed without salary in lieu of notice”, she said, because he knew he was being terminated with salary in lieu of notice and was simply asking when he would receive it.
The man also accepted the payment when it was made on Oct 31 and did not object at the time.
The magistrate rejected his argument that eligibility should be determined solely based on the date he filed his mediation request with TADM.
She found there was “no clear case authority or principle of statutory interpretation” supporting such an approach.
Neither the Employment Act nor the parliamentary debates indicated that an employee’s status had to be assessed only at the point when mediation was initiated, she said.
The magistrate also warned that accepting the claimant’s argument could lead to “absurd results”.
For example, someone could file a mediation request immediately after receiving a termination letter and argue that he had been dismissed without salary in lieu of notice, even if the employer paid him the very next day after completing its payroll procedures.
“This could not have been an outcome that Parliament had intended,” she said.
The judgment also drew a distinction between the roles of TADM and the ECT.
While TADM seeks to help parties resolve disputes through mediation, it does not determine whether someone qualifies as a “relevant employee” under the Employment Act.
Instead, it is for the ECT to decide that issue based on “the evidence and relevant law”, the magistrate said.
After considering the facts, the magistrate found that the claimant had been employed in a managerial position, had worked for the company for only five months and 27 days, and had been dismissed without notice but with salary in lieu of notice.
As a result, he did not satisfy any of the statutory definitions of a “relevant employee”.
The magistrate said the manager had failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that he qualified under the Employment Act.
She added that the relevant provision appeared intended to protect “vulnerable employees who have been terminated without notice and who have not been paid any salary in lieu of notice”.
The man, who ultimately received salary in lieu of notice, was “no longer in the vulnerable position” that the provision was designed to address, she said.
The tribunal therefore dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction.
Because of that finding, it did not consider the claimant’s separate application to have another employment claim, involving his hiring bonus, heard together with the wrongful dismissal case.
As the tribunal’s ruling was not a decision on the merits of the case, the magistrate added: “The parties may wish to seek legal advice on the remedies and recourse available to them.”
No order was made as to costs.
