share on
The Employment Claims Tribunals found that the employer failed to substantiate its performance assessment or follow its own probation process.
A Singapore employer has been ordered to pay the maximum statutory compensation of S$30,000 after the Employment Claims Tribunals (ECT) found it had wrongfully dismissed a probationary employee, ruling that the company failed to prove she was unsuitable for confirmation.
In its grounds of decision issued on 28 July 2026, the tribunal found that while the claimant had some genuine areas for improvement, the employer had not shown that these shortcomings justified dismissal. Instead, it concluded that the company had failed to communicate its performance expectations clearly, did not follow its own probation management process, and relied on performance ratings that were not sufficiently supported by evidence.
The claimant joined the company as a Regional Internal Control Audit Manager on 21 April 2025, subject to a six-month probation period. However, just days before the probation was due to end, she was informed on 16 October 2025 that her performance had not met the standards required for confirmation and was given two weeks' notice. Her employment ended on 31 October 2025.
She subsequently brought a claim under the Employment Act, arguing that she had been dismissed without just cause or excuse. Besides disputing the employer's assessment of her performance, she also alleged that her dismissal was linked to language-based discrimination and retaliation for raising concerns over an internal restructuring proposal.
The employer maintained that the dismissal was based solely on poor performance during probation, relying on an internal evaluation process that required employees to achieve an overall score of at least 80% for performance goals and an average competency rating of at least three out of five. The claimant received a score of 71% and an average competency rating of 2.4.
However, after examining the evidence, the tribunal found that the employer had not established that the individual scores and ratings supporting that those results were justified.
Tribunal Magistrate Joel Tan noted that while employers are entitled to determine the standards required for a role, they must also demonstrate that employees were assessed against standards that were clearly communicated and fairly applied.
Performance standards must be communicated, not assumed
Commenting on the case in a LinkedIn post, Patrick Tay Teck Guan, Assistant Secretary-General, National Trades Union Congress (NTUC), said one of the clearest lessons from the case is that employers cannot rely on vague performance standards alone.
"The company's own probation process required supervisors to explain competency standards early, and to hold periodic documented reviews, but none of these happened," he said.
He further noted that competency descriptors such as "personal leadership" and "business acumen" were left open to interpretation because they were not clearly communicated. As a result, the claimant did not receive formal feedback on her performance until the day she was dismissed.
The tribunal reached a similar conclusion.
It found that many of the competencies used to assess the claimant, including collaboration, business acumen, driving force, and global perspective, were qualitative in nature and capable of a wide range of interpretations. Although the employer's probation process required supervisors to explain what each competency meant within the employee's first week and conduct regular documented reviews throughout probation, the reporting supervisor admitted she had done neither.
As a result, the claimant was left to navigate broad competency descriptions without understanding how they would be applied in practice or what was required to achieve a passing rating. Magistrate Tan said the responsibility for making those expectations clear rested with the reporting supervisor, particularly as a probationary employee would naturally still be learning the organisation's specific ways of working.
The same issue extended to the claimant's performance goals. The tribunal noted that despite the employer's own process requiring periodic reviews, the claimant only received formal feedback on her performance goals on the very day she was informed she had failed probation.
Employers must support performance ratings with evidence
The tribunal's concerns did not stop there. It also found that the employer had failed to substantiate the ratings it assigned during the claimant's probation review.
Although the probation evaluation form included sections for the reporting supervisor to record the reasons behind each competency rating, every one of those sections had been left blank. Instead, the supervisor attempted to explain the ratings for the first time during the hearing.
After considering those explanations, the tribunal found they amounted largely to personal impressions rather than evidence that the claimant had been assessed against clearly defined standards.
ASG Tay said this reinforces another important principle highlighted by the judgment.
"Ratings must be backed by documented justification and not just oral impressions offered for the first time at the hearing. Where a supervisor could not show what standard was applied, or that the employee was measured against it, the ECT may find it unreliable."
The tribunal ultimately concluded that the competency ratings could not be accepted as reliable evidence that the claimant had fallen below the company's suitability threshold.
The same pattern emerged when it reviewed the claimant's individual performance goals.
Across several goals, the tribunal found that the employer either failed to prove the alleged shortcomings, failed to show that any shortcomings had materially affected the claimant's work, or had not established that the claimant had been informed those issues would carry significant weight in her overall assessment.
For example, deductions were made for matters such as reporting formats, administrative compliance and presentation issues. However, the tribunal found there was insufficient evidence that these justified the substantial score reductions applied. In another instance, the employer removed one performance goal and transferred its weighting to another without discussing the change with the claimant, effectively increasing the importance of one assessment area without her knowledge.
Not every performance issue justifies dismissal
The tribunal acknowledged that the claimant was not without shortcomings. It found that she had been reluctant to engage fully with one process audit assignment and had not complied with a request to provide interim reporting despite being instructed to do so. However, it concluded that these issues alone did not demonstrate that she was unsuitable to be confirmed as a permanent employee.
ASG Tay cited this as the third key takeaway from the judgment. "A proven shortcoming does not automatically justify a harsh outcome. The ECT accepted the claimant had some genuine areas for improvement, but found this did not equate to proof of unsuitability for confirmation."
He added that employers must be able to demonstrate a clear and proportionate link between a specific performance shortcoming and the weight it carries in an employee's final assessment.
The tribunal agreed that the employer had not shown such a link. It found that although some shortcomings had been established, the employer had not demonstrated that they justified the significant deductions applied during the probation assessment or ultimately proved the claimant was unsuitable for confirmation. It also observed that an employer who has not clearly communicated its performance standards cannot later rely on an employee's failure to meet those standards as evidence of unsuitability.
Separately, the tribunal dismissed the claimant's allegations that her dismissal was linked to her inability to speak Korean or that it amounted to retaliation for raising concerns about an internal restructuring proposal, finding insufficient evidence to support either claim.
Echoing that aspect of the judgment, ASG Tay said the ruling is also a reminder that both employers and employees bear the responsibility of substantiating their claims.
Referring to the tribunal's findings on the remaining claims, ASG Tay noted that the allegations of language-based discrimination and whistleblower retaliation were not substantiated due to insufficient evidence. He said this reinforces the importance of both employers and employees grounding their claims in facts rather than conjecture.
Claimant awarded maximum statutory compensation
Having found that the claimant had been wrongfully dismissed, the tribunal ruled that she was entitled to compensation.
As detailed by Magistrate Tan, it accepted her evidence that she had been unable to secure another job after her dismissal despite submitting more than 30 job applications and attending several interviews. The tribunal said she would ordinarily have been entitled to three months' salary for loss of income and noted that, had the statutory cap permitted, it would also have awarded an additional two months' salary for the distress caused by the dismissal.
However, because claims before the tribunal are subject to a statutory limit, the claimant was awarded the maximum permissible amount of S$30,000, together with S$300 in costs and S$60 in disbursements.
ASG Tay affirmed that the ruling serves as "a timely reminder that good HR practices are to protect workers from unfair treatment, and they protect employers too, by giving them a solid, defensible basis for tough decisions."
ALSO READ: Wrongful dismissal in Malaysia: When is a termination unfair, and when is it justified?
share on
