Singapore tribunal orders company to pay woman S$30K for wrongful dismissal during probation period after failing to prove poor job performance

SINGAPORE: A Singapore tribunal has ordered a company to pay a former employee S$30,000 after ruling that her dismissal during probation was wrongful.

The Employment Claims Tribunal (ECT) found the company couldn’t prove that the woman had failed to meet its performance standards because those standards were never properly explained to her.

The woman, who worked as a regional internal control audit manager, lost her job shortly before completing her six-month probation in October 2025. The company said she had underperformed, but the tribunal found its own assessment process fell short, Channel NewsAsia (CNA) reported (July 28).

Performance standards were never made clear

The woman earned S$11,500 a month and joined the company in April 2025. She challenged her dismissal before the ECT, saying she had never received formal warnings, documented probation reviews or meaningful feedback before being told she had failed probation.

Tribunal magistrate Joel Tan agreed that the company’s probation process had serious flaws. The judgment found the woman was judged against performance standards that were never clearly communicated. It also found a mismatch between what she believed her role required and what her supervisor considered important.

Although the tribunal accepted that the woman had weaknesses, it said shortcomings alone didn’t justify ending her employment. Instead, the evidence suggested she should at least have been given more time under an extended probation period.

Supervisor relied on personal impressions instead of documented evidence

The company said employees needed to meet minimum performance goal scores and competency ratings to pass probation. The woman scored below those targets.

However, the tribunal found the scores themselves weren’t reliable. Her supervisor didn’t explain how the competency ratings were measured, failed to conduct the documented probation reviews required under company policy, and left every section meant to justify the ratings blank.

During the hearing, the supervisor described concerns about the woman’s teamwork, communication, enthusiasm, work formatting, and initiative. The tribunal found those comments were personal opinions rather than evidence measured against defined standards.

Magistrate Joel Tan said the company hadn’t shown that the employee failed to meet known requirements. Instead, it relied on impressions that were presented as formal performance assessments. The tribunal also found one performance goal had its weighting doubled without the woman’s knowledge.

Some criticisms had merit but didn’t justify dismissal

The company pointed to unfinished audit work and formatting errors as examples of poor performance. The tribunal accepted that the woman hadn’t handled one audit assignment well and identified this as a weakness.

Still, it ruled that the weakness couldn’t justify the low overall assessment, especially since the company hadn’t explained how its scoring system worked.

The judgment also noted the supervisor never criticised the quality of the woman’s actual audit work, which formed the core of her job.

Evidence from another senior manager and a human resources officer also failed to strengthen the company’s case, as their views relied heavily on the supervisor’s assessment rather than on independent evidence.

Claims of discrimination and whistleblowing weren’t supported

The woman also claimed she was disadvantaged because senior colleagues frequently discussed work matters in Korean even though English was the company’s working language.

She further alleged she was dismissed after raising concerns about a proposed restructuring and about audit leadership. The tribunal found there wasn’t enough evidence to support either claim.

Its decision rested solely on the company’s failure to justify the performance assessment that led to the dismissal.

Compensation reached the legal limit

Magistrate Joel Tan found the woman would probably have stayed employed for at least another three months under an extended probation if she hadn’t been dismissed, amounting to S$34,500 based on her salary.

However, the Employment Claims Tribunal can award a maximum of S$30,000 for claims of this nature, so that became the final compensation.

The tribunal also ordered the company to pay S$360 in legal costs and related expenses. The magistrate said he would have awarded an additional two months’ salary for the harm suffered if the statutory cap hadn’t applied.

The tribunal reinforces fair probation practices to protect both employers and employees

The ruling doesn’t mean employers can’t dismiss employees during probation. It shows that probation still requires a fair process.

Companies must tell employees what success looks like, document feedback and apply their own review procedures consistently. Without those steps, proving poor performance becomes much harder if a dismissal is challenged.

Probation, beyond the testing period for employees, is a test of whether employers manage people fairly.

Clear expectations, timely feedback and proper records protect both sides and help prevent disputes from ending up before a tribunal.