CNA Explains: What workers and bosses need to know about the dismissal of pregnant staff

Mr Kotwani said that the protection is stronger once the employee is actually on maternity leave. The Employment Act specifically restricts employers from giving notice of dismissal during that period.

Even if there is a legitimate reason for termination, separate maternity-benefit obligations may remain, said Ms Kaur.

“MOM states that a pregnant employee who has served her employer for at least three months and is dismissed without sufficient cause or retrenched is still entitled to the applicable maternity benefits,” she said.

How can workers protect themselves?

Ms Kaur said an employee who is pregnant or on maternity leave should first consider whether the dismissal notice was given during her maternity leave itself, or timed to expire during maternity leave.

“This is unlawful outright under Section 81 of the Employment Act and will not require a further ‘sufficient cause’ analysis,” she said.

If the dismissal notice was given at any other point during the pregnancy and the employee has worked for at least three months, the employer will have to show “sufficient cause”, said Ms Kaur.

Even if the employer cites redundancy or business reorganisation, a pregnant employee can still challenge the dismissal if it is wrongful.

If the employer is alleging misconduct by the employee, she should make sure the employer has conducted a due inquiry and keep clear, contemporaneous records, said Ms Kaur.

It all boils down to evidence, agreed Mr Lee, advising employees to keep a written record and to save messages, emails and performance appraisals.

After any important conversation, send a short email setting out what was said, he added.

“The employee in this case did exactly that, asking that any decision to terminate her be put ‘in black and white’,” said Mr Lee.

If an employer suddenly raises performance concerns, removes responsibilities or suggests termination, ask for the reasons in writing, added Mr Kotwani.

“Do not resign in haste: a worker who resigns has to show that the resignation was forced, so get advice before deciding,” said Mr Lee.

He added that such workers should seek help early, from the TADM, a union or a lawyer, as wrongful dismissal claims generally have to be filed within one month from the last day of employment.

Ms Kaur said MOM’s maternity-dispute guidance also states that a claim concerning wrongful dismissal during pregnancy and unpaid maternity benefits should be filed after dismissal and within two weeks of the child’s birth.

Employees should seek prompt advice on which deadline applies to them, said Ms Kaur.

Can it be a wrongful dismissal if the employee is forced to resign?

Discrimination is rarely expressed that directly, said Mr Kotwani. He said a tribunal can infer the real reason from the surrounding circumstances.

“The law recognises the concept of ‘constructive dismissal’,” explained Mr Faraaz.

“This means that where the employer has ‘forced’ the employee to resign, through its words and conduct, the law will recognise that the employee has been ‘constructively’ dismissed,” he said.

This occurs where the employer’s conduct has left the worker with no practical alternative or choice but to resign. The tribunal can then find that an employee has been wrongfully dismissed, even though the employee technically resigned, said Mr Faraaz.

However, not every difficult workplace interaction will amount to constructive dismissal, said Ms Kaur. The employee must establish that the resignation was involuntary and caused by the employer’s conduct.

In other words, the employee must have evidence to support her claim.

Can you secretly record your boss to protect yourself from unfair dismissal?

In this case, the woman had a recording of a call with her boss that was a “crucial piece of evidence”, said Mr Lee.

He said it is generally not a criminal offence in Singapore to record a conversation you are part of, and a court can rely on such recordings.

“The risks lie in how a recording is made and used,” he said.

A person does not generally need the other side’s consent to record a conversation they are part of in a phone call or an ordinary meeting.

However, being open about it is better practice, said Mr Lee.

“If an employer has a clear policy against recording, or expressly asks an employee not to record, doing so anyway, especially secretly, may be treated as disobeying an instruction and can undermine the employee’s credibility,” said Mr Lee.

He stressed that recordings should be used only to obtain legal advice or pursue a claim and should not be shared online. If it is, and confidential information is made public, employers may initiate proceedings for damages.

Mr Lee added that employers are held to a different standard under the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) – it does not need consent from employees where recording its staff if the recording is reasonable for managing the employment relationship. 

However, it must tell them why it is recording, such as through an employment contract, an employee handbook or through HR policies.

Secretly recording staff without such notice risks breaching the PDPA, said Mr Lee.

Employers may also restrict staff from recording meetings, but any such policy should be clear, communicated in advance and applied fairly, he said.

Ms Kaur said an employee recording a conversation with a colleague or manager for their own personal protection generally falls outside the PDPA.

However, if a company’s internal policies expressly prohibit covert recording, doing so can expose the employee to disciplinary action, which might then form grounds of misconduct for dismissal, said Ms Kaur.

A contemporaneous written note or follow-up email is often a cleaner way of preserving evidence, Mr Kotwani said.

How will the upcoming Workplace Fairness Act change things?

The Workplace Fairness Act is expected to come into effect in end-2027, said Ms Kaur.

It protects workers against discrimination and prohibits employers from making adverse employment decisions based on protected characteristics like sex, marital status and caregiving responsibilities, she said.

It also includes strict provisions against retaliation for employees who report discriminatory behaviour, said Ms Kaur.

The upcoming Act also lists pregnancy and caregiving responsibilities among its protected characteristics, and will initially apply to employers with 25 or more employees, said Mr Lee.

He said there are clear lessons for employers here, as the court published the judgment last month to “shed light on the kind of adverse workplace culture that working women who choose to have children may encounter from certain employers”.

“Beyond legal liability, there are risks to an employer’s reputation and to workforce morale. Decisions on performance or conduct must rest on documented, legitimate grounds unrelated to the pregnancy,” he said.

“If an employer has legitimate reasons to dismiss a pregnant employee, it should carry out the process sensitively: hold difficult conversations in person, with HR present, and confirm them in writing,” said Mr Lee.

“Above all, managers should be trained, because the company is answerable for what they say and write. Here, a WhatsApp message and a phone call became key evidence against the employer. Employers must level up and prepare for the higher standards expected of them.”