SINGAPORE: A Singapore company has been ordered to pay a former employee S$26,350 after making him retire without notice and failing to carry out a proper re-employment process.
The Employment Claims Tribunals ruled that the company wrongly assumed it could end the 63-year-old man’s employment simply because he had reached the statutory retirement age. It also found the firm’s re-employment exercise fell short of what the law expects.
The former area manager sought S$11,600 for wrongful dismissal and S$14,750 as an employment assistance payment. Tribunal Magistrate Joel Tan awarded him the full amount, along with S$320 in legal costs, Channel NewsAsia (CNA) reported (July 14).
Retirement doesn’t remove the need for employees’ notice requirements
The employer argued it was retiring the employee on a lawful basis, so it didn’t need to give notice or salary in lieu of notice. It also said no employment assistance payment was required because the man had rejected its re-employment offer.
The tribunal disagreed.
Mr Tan said employers must still give notice, or pay salary in lieu of notice, if they end an employment contract after a worker reaches retirement age. Retirement doesn’t automatically bring an employment contract to an immediate end.
Ten days to decide wasn’t a reasonable process for the employee
The employee turned 63 in March 2025 but wasn’t offered re-employment beforehand. He raised the matter himself in June, after which the company offered him a six-month contract as a training executive instead of his previous role as area manager. The new role paid S$4,000 a month, down from S$6,428.
When he questioned why the contract lasted only six months instead of the usual one year, the company said the shorter term was due to restructuring and to review whether the new role suited both sides. It also gave him a one-week deadline to decide.
The man asked for more time because he was on medical leave, but the company refused. He then rejected the offer, saying the role differed greatly from his existing job, reduced his salary substantially and offered little security. The company terminated his employment the following day without notice.
The tribunal said the lower salary and different job weren’t, by themselves, enough to make the offer unreasonable. Instead, the problem lay in how the company handled the process.
Mr Tan said employers should begin discussing re-employment at least six months before retirement, allowing enough time for meaningful conversations about roles, training needs, pay and expectations.
Tripartite Guidelines also recommend making a formal offer at least three months before retirement to avoid putting workers under unnecessary pressure.
In this case, the entire process lasted only 10 days, from the employee’s first enquiry to the deadline to accept the offer. The tribunal found the company hadn’t reasonably engaged or consulted him, meaning it had failed to meet its obligations under the Retirement and Re-employment Act.
The law requires employers to either continue employing an eligible worker, transfer the worker to another employer with consent, or pay an employment assistance payment if re-employment isn’t possible.
Respectful consultation is part of the legal process during retirement transitions
Retirement is more than an administrative milestone because it can affect a person’s income, identity and future plans.
The tribunal stressed that employers are expected to approach these discussions with respect, openness and enough time for genuine consultation, rather than treating them as a last-minute paperwork exercise.
The case also shows that, in complying with employment law, the way employers communicate, consult, and manage the transition can determine whether they have met their legal duties.
Good employment practices shouldn’t begin when retirement is days away. By then, trust may already be hard to rebuild.
