Firm loses wrongful dismissal case despite following termination clause

C sought S$18,000 for lost income and harm, arguing that he was dismissed because he had disclosed his condition. He cited his earlier confirmation, bonus and pay rise, followed by his reassignment and dismissal without any warning or formal performance feedback.

RPL denied discrimination, saying it had granted him medical leave, offered counselling and assigned him regular working hours. 

SEE ALSO

It also cited concerns about his performance and suitability, while maintaining that he was not dismissed for any particular reason.

Why RPL lost

Kang accepted that RPL’s response to C’s diagnosis was consistent with accommodation, rather than discrimination. 

The evidence therefore did not show that his condition was probably the reason for his dismissal.

But failing to prove discrimination did not mean that RPL automatically had a valid reason to dismiss him. 

Kang explained that the contract governed how the employment could be ended, through notice or payment in lieu. The Employment Act posed a separate question: whether there was “just cause or excuse” for the dismissal.

RPL proved one specific performance lapse involving C’s handling of a concrete-supply shortage. Kang also accepted that some wider performance or suitability concerns probably existed, but found that their extent and seriousness had not been established. 

However, there was “little contemporaneous material” showing serious or persistent problems, and it did not call as witnesses the managers who had assigned and assessed C’s tender work. 

Its continued assignment of important work to him also “sat uneasily” with its later claims about his suitability.

Kang therefore found that C had shown that RPL lacked a sufficiently established and serious reason to dismiss him.

Why the ruling matters

Kang said the parties’ arguments reflected wider uncertainty in the legal framework. 

RPL treated compliance with the contractual termination clause as substantially answering the statutory claim, while C focused on proving discrimination because of how he understood the Tripartite Guidelines on Wrongful Dismissal. The difficulty, Kang added, was that “wrongful dismissal” performs more than one legal function. 

At common law, it generally concerns a breach of the employment contract. Under the Employment Act and Employment Claims Act, it is also used for a claim arising from dismissal without “just cause or excuse”. 

Kang noted that some of the confusion arose because wording inherited from an older industrial-relations system remained even as employment policy and the institutions handling dismissal disputes changed. While some of the resulting uncertainty could be managed by the courts, Kang said that the “remainder would be placed upon a more secure footing by legislative attention”.