- A woman was dismissed after six months on probation without clear communication of performance standards.
- The tribunal found that the employer failed to justify its claim that the audit manager had not met the required performance standards.
- The tribunal awarded the woman maximum compensation of around ₹19 lakh.
- The tribunal noted that many of the employer's criticisms were unsupported by evidence or related to expectations that had never been properly communicated.
- The employer failed to prove her poor performance as required under company policies.
- The company argued that the dismissal was based solely on performance, requiring an overall performance score of at least 80% and an average competency rating of three out of five across 10 key competencies.
- The audit manager received a performance score of 71% and an average competency rating of 2.4.
- The judgement noted that the employee's supervisor admitted she had not explained the competency rating system at the start of employment.
- The tribunal rejected the employee's claims of language discrimination and whistleblower retaliation, finding insufficient evidence to support either allegation.
- Magistrate Tan noted that, if not for the statutory cap, he would have awarded an additional two months' salary for the distress caused by the wrongful dismissal.
A woman in Singapore has been awarded Rs 19 lakh after the Employment Claims Tribunal ruled her dismissal for 'poor performance' was unjustified. The tribunal found that the employer failed to substantiate claims regarding her performance during her six-month probation.25
The tribunal's judgement, released on July 28, highlighted that the employer could not prove the audit manager's alleged poor performance as required under company policies. She received a performance score of 71% and an average competency rating of 2.4, which did not meet the company's benchmarks of an overall score of at least 80% and an average competency rating of three out of five across ten areas.
The tribunal noted that the employee was dismissed without clear communication of performance standards, leaving her to navigate unclear expectations. Magistrate Tan remarked that many criticisms from the employer were unsupported by evidence or related to expectations that had not been properly communicated. He stated that if not for the statutory cap, he would have awarded an additional two months' salary for the distress caused by the wrongful dismissal, bringing the total compensation to S$57,500.4
The tribunal also examined various complaints from the employer, including missed deadlines and formatting issues, but found that many lacked supporting evidence. Ultimately, the tribunal agreed only with her first argument regarding the unjustified dismissal.
“The tribunal noted that the employer's criticisms lacked supporting evidence and involved expectations that were not clearly communicated. Additionally, the magistrate indicated that the woman would have received more compensation if not for the statutory cap, highlighting the distress caused by her wrongful dismissal.”
