Director further argues at Singapore court she was deprived of maternity benefits
A District Court in Singapore recently dealt with a case involving an employer who terminated a pregnant worker's employment, allegedly without sufficient cause.
The worker, Navinea Kanapathy Pillai, claimed that this amounted to wrongful dismissal under the Employment Act, and sought damages from its employer, Longitude 101 Pte. Ltd. and its de facto director, Haeusler Thomas.
The court discussed the issues surrounding the termination of a pregnant employee, the burden of proof in wrongful dismissal claims, and the concept of conspiracy by unlawful means.
The case also involved other issues, such as allegations of misappropriation of funds and breach of confidentiality, which the court examined.
Pillai was initially employed by Latitude 1.1 Group Pte Ltd ("Latitude") sometime in 2019 before being deployed to Longitude, a related company providing accounting services to Latitude's clients.
She held the position of Head of Finance and was also named the sole director of Longitude up until the termination of her employment.
Thomas was the sole shareholder of both Longitude and Latitude. Additionally, he was disqualified from acting as a director under the Companies Act for 5 years from 6 June 2017.
Despite this, the court found that Thomas played an active and dominant role in the decisions of Longitude and was its de facto director and controlling mind.
From March 2020, Pillai started working from home due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Longitude provided her with furniture, stationery, and computer equipment, and documents were delivered to her home to facilitate the work from home arrangements.
Around 15 December 2020, Pillai informed Thomas that she was pregnant.
According to records, the dispute revolved around the termination of Pillai's employment through a "Notice Of Termination With Salary In Lieu Of Notice" issued by Longitude on 27 April 2021.
The termination was effective on the same day, and Longitude offered to pay Pillai 3 months' salary in lieu of notice ($43,500) and an additional bonus of $15,000. However, the court said that these sums have yet to be paid to Pillai.
Aside from the reference to the contractual notice clause, no reasons were provided for the termination in the notice. Pillai, who was pregnant at the time, argued that she was dismissed due to her pregnancy and that Longitude's actions deprived her of maternity benefits.
In addition to the wrongful dismissal claim, Pillai alleged that Longitude and Thomas conspired to wrongfully dismiss her.
She also raised the possibility that her dismissal was due to her refusal to follow Thomas’ instructions to perform acts that were in breach of statutory and regulatory requirements, or because of issues regarding sexual harassment from Thomas.
In determining whether the dismissal was wrongful, the court referred to the Tripartite Guidelines on Wrongful Dismissal, which provide illustrations of what constitutes sufficient cause for dismissal.
The court emphasized that relying on a contractual notice period or paying salary in lieu thereof does not, in itself, constitute sufficient cause under the Employment Act.
The court noted that the employer bore the burden of rebutting the worker's claim that her dismissal was due to her pregnancy. However, the evidence presented by Longitude failed to convincingly demonstrate any reasons amounting to sufficient cause for terminating Pillai's employment.
The court highlighted Longitude's inconsistent positions regarding the reasons for the termination:
"[Thomas’] evidence during trial indicated that Pillai's employment was being terminated based on the Termination With Notice Clause rather than for performance related reasons."
"I was not convinced by [the employer’s] evidence during trial that there was tension between Pillai and himself that led to his decision to terminate her employment, because this contradicted his concession that her employment was not being terminated for performance related reasons."
The court further found that Pillai had established all five elements required to prove a claim of conspiracy by unlawful means.
There was an agreement between Thomas and Longitude to cause damage or injure Pillai by terminating her employment based on the contractual notice clause when she was pregnant, which deprived her of benefits and payments she was entitled to.
The court explained that the termination of Pillai's employment based on the notice clause, without sufficient cause and while she was pregnant, was unlawful as it contravened the Employment Act.
The court also noted that Pillai suffered damage in the form of benefits and payments she was deprived of due to the wrongful dismissal.
Between 15 January 2021 and 18 March 2021, Pillai withdrew sums amounting to $100,500 from Longitude's bank accounts.
Longitude claimed that Pillai had misappropriated these funds. However, the court found that the withdrawn funds were paid to Thomas as $97,000 in dividends due to him as the sole shareholder of Longitude and a further $3,500 as a shareholder distribution requested by Thomas. The court determined that Pillai did not misappropriate the funds.
Longitude also alleged that Pillai breached the confidentiality clause in her employment contract and an equitable duty of confidence by deleting confidential information from her computer or refusing to return the information to Longitude.
The court determined that Longitude failed to prove these breaches, as it was unable to identify the specific confidential information in question and demonstrate that Pillai failed to surrender such information upon the termination of her employment.
Ultimately, the court dismissed Longitude's claims against Pillai and granted her counterclaim against Longitude and Thomas.
The court found that Pillai was wrongfully dismissed from her employment due to her pregnancy and that there was a conspiracy by unlawful means to cause damage to her.
The court emphasized the legal protections afforded to pregnant employees:
"The purpose of section 84(1)(b) of the Employment Act is explained in the Second Reading of the Child Development Co-Savings (Amendment) Bill ... [which] indicated: '... pregnant employees who have served an employer for at least three months and obtained a doctor's certification of pregnancy prior to the notice of dismissal will be protected against dismissal without sufficient cause, or retrenchment, throughout their pregnancy.'"
The court also highlighted the consequences of wrongful dismissal:
"Pillai has clearly suffered damage in the form of the benefits and payments she was deprived of because of the wrongful dismissal. The damages she is entitled to relates to the $122,123.93 payable to her as result of her wrongful dismissal."
The court reminded employers of their legal obligations towards pregnant employees and the potential repercussions of wrongful dismissals.
It also underscored the importance of providing sufficient cause when terminating the employment of expectant mothers and ensures that they are not deprived of their rightful maternity benefits.
