SINGAPORE: A woman who was wrongfully dismissed because of her pregnancy and upcoming maternity leave was awarded S$19,800 (US$15,520) by an Employment Claims Tribunal (ECT) on Tuesday (Sep 22).
This sum comprises three months of the woman’s gross pay on top of another three months’ pay for harm caused to her.
The woman, named only as C in the judgment, had received a good performance appraisal before giving birth, but was not given any increment and was later told she did not fit into the new boss’ vision of the team.
Parties are usually not named in ECT judgments as the hearings are conducted in private.
The new boss, named as Mr EC, kept trying to call her although she was on hospitalisation leave for pregnancy complications and eventually told her over a call that her employment would be terminated when her maternity leave ended.
Tribunal magistrate Lee Li Choon said this case sheds light on the kind of adverse workplace culture that working women who choose to have children may encounter from certain employers.
THE CASE
The woman had brought a claim for compensation for her dismissal, saying it was without just cause or excuse because it was discriminatory.
She began working as an executive for the unnamed company on Apr 21, 2021.
In March 2023, C’s business unit came under a new director, Mr EC, who had recently joined the company.
According to a timeline of events set out in the judgment, C had a one-on-one lunch with Mr EC in April 2023, during which she told him she was pregnant and due in October that year.
She said she was considering whether to take a few months of sabbatical leave, as provided for in the company’s human resources handbook, in order to care for her newborn.
In July 2023, C had her performance appraisal meeting with Mr EC, as well as the previous director of her business unit, and Ms JY, a new director of her business unit.
Ms JY described C’s performance for the period from July 2022 to June 2023 as “excellent”, with a “healthy growth mindset”. She also said C had “an impressive ability to take on multi-disciplinary projects that are outside of her niche”.
Mr EC concurred with this appraisal and said C’s performance was good.
In September 2023, C submitted her maternity leave form with the date fields left blank. She explained, when asked by HR personnel, that her child’s date of birth was not yet known, and that she was still considering whether to apply for sabbatical leave on top of maternity leave.
On Sep 13, 2023, C was hospitalised for pregnancy-related complications and high blood pressure.
At the time, she was 36 weeks’ pregnant with her first child. She told the company’s HR personnel that she would be on hospitalisation leave due to pregnancy-related complications.
She continued to be on hospitalisation leave until she gave birth.
On Sep 18, 2023, Ms JY told C that Mr EC was not keen to have C return to work.
On Oct 2, 2023, Mr EC sent C a message indicating that he wished to speak to her.
C asked what it was about, saying she would like to focus on her pregnancy and not think about work as much as possible.
Read Full Article At Source
