Singapore’s Employment Claims Tribunals (“ECT“) have been busy — and employers are paying the price for old habits. Ten published decisions in 2026 covering dismissal, employee misconduct, discrimination, overtime and retrenchment signal a shift in how the ECT is scrutinising employer conduct. Chief among these shifts is that the long-held assumption that staying silent on reasons for dismissal is a safe harbour may no longer be tenable. Here are 10 lessons every employer in Singapore needs to take on board now.
- Paying notice does not protect you from a wrongful dismissal claimThe ECT has firmly rejected the idea that giving notice or salary in lieu of notice is a “get out of jail free” card. Section 14(2) of the Employment Act 1968 requires the ECT to look at whether there is a just cause and excuse for the termination. Contractual compliance and statutory justification are two different things.
- Silence is not goldenEmployers commonly hold the view that they need not provide reasons for termination when they are exercising their contractual right of termination, and since the Tripartite Guidelines on Wrongful Dismissal suggest that a termination with notice is presumed not to be wrongful, there is tactical advantage in staying silent on the reasons for termination. The ECT has found that where an employee is dismissed with notice but no reasons given, requiring the employee to prove a “positively wrongful reason” in every case would effectively require proof of an “unbounded negative,” which the Guidelines cannot lawfully impose. The ECT will examine the objective employment record; if the objective employment record taken as a whole, does not show any reason for termination, the ECT can make a finding of wrongful dismissal even where the employee has failed to prove discriminatory motives or wrongful reasons on the employer’s part.
- Consistency matters — treat like cases alikeConsistency of treatment across materially similar cases goes directly to proportionality — and therefore to whether the dismissal of a particular employee was with just cause or excuse. Where an organisation dismissed one employee for conduct that attracted only a warning for others in materially similar circumstances, that disparity will be a material factor in the ECT’s assessment.
- Due inquiry must be conducted if an employer wishes to rely on misconduct The previously held view is that due inquiry is only required if the employer is inclined to engage in summary dismissal, based on the literal interpretation of the relevant provision in the Employment Act 1968. The ECT has taken a more purposive interpretation, holding that whenever an employer relies on misconduct as the basis for terminating an employee, “due inquiry” under Section 14(1) of the Employment Act is required—even if the employer decides to terminate the employee with notice or pay salary in lieu of notice.
- Performance terminations require clear, communicated performance standardsDismissing an employee for poor performance requires more than a low score on an appraisal form. The ECT will ask whether the performance standards were clearly communicated, whether the employee had a genuine opportunity to meet them, and whether the scores were justified. An employer who has not made its performance standards clear cannot then rely on an employee’s non-conformity with those standards as evidence of unsuitability.
- Redundancy must be genuine and the process must be fairA redundancy dismissal can still be “without just cause or excuse” if the redundancy reason is not genuine or the process is deficient. The ECT will scrutinise the redundancy and failing to share a list of alternative roles with the affected employee, missing mandatory MOM notification timelines, and issuing misleading staff announcements are all red flags.
- Employers must maintain and make accessible accurate attendance recordsSection 95 of the Employment Act 1968 requires employers to make and keep records of employees’ working hours. The ECT will draw adverse inferences where an employer fails to maintain those records, or maintains them but refuses to produce them. An employer that denies the existence of records it plainly kept, and whose account of working hours is internally incoherent, will find itself with very little to stand on when a claim is brought.
- Employer conduct can turn a resignation into a dismissalThe definition of “dismiss” under Section 2(1) of the Employment Act 1968 includes the resignation of an employee who can show, on a balance of probabilities, that she did not resign voluntarily but was forced to do so because of the employer’s conduct or omissions. The ECT has clarified that “forced” does not require the complete negation of choice — it is sufficient that the employer’s conduct left the employee with no practical alternative but to resign, assessed objectively but with regard to the employee’s particular circumstances. Critically, the employer’s conduct must be the operative cause of the resignation. Employers should therefore be aware that a resignation letter does not necessarily close the door to a wrongful dismissal claim — if the conduct that preceded it is what drove the employee out, the ECT can and will look behind the resignation.
- The ECT will review internal findings of misconduct afresh.Employers may hold the view that as long as it conducts due inquiry or internal investigations in accordance with proper procedure, its internal decisions cannot be challenged. The ECT has shown a willingness to review the outcome of such internal decisions, by analysing whether the conduct complained of is sufficiently serious to be considered misconduct.
- The duty to make reasonable accommodation for ill employeesAn employer should approach an ill employee’s return to work by undertaking a reasonable inquiry into the relevant considerations, including the actual state of the employee’s medical condition and its likely duration, the effect of that condition on the employee’s ability to perform her role, the employer’s operational requirements, the availability of alternative roles or arrangements, and whether adjustments or accommodations can reasonably be made. Failure to do so will amount to a fundamental breach of the duty to take reasonable care and a breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence.
What should employers do now?
The 2026 ECT decisions mark a clear inflection point. Taken together, they dismantle several assumptions that Singapore employers have long relied upon — that notice pays off liability or that silence is tactically safe. The ECT is asking harder questions, and the answers are costing employers dearly. Whether you are reviewing your disciplinary framework, revisiting your redundancy process, or rethinking how you handle a medically vulnerable employee, now is the time to act — before a dispute forces your hand. If any of these lessons resonate with your organisation’s current practices, we would be glad to help you assess your exposure and put the right safeguards in place. Please do not hesitate to get in touch with our Employment team.
This article is produced by our Singapore office, Bird & Bird ATMD LLP. It does not constitute legal advice and is intended to provide general information only. Information in this article is accurate as of 19 August 2026.
For further information, please contact:
Seow Hui Goh, Partner, Bird & Bird
seowhui.goh@twobirds.com
