Is the employer's disciplinary process unfair for inadequate notice?
The General Division of the Singapore's High Court recently dealt with an employment dispute where a senior executive challenged his summary dismissal, arguing it breached company procedures and the implied duty of mutual trust and confidence. He also sought to recover unpaid compensation and commissions.
The worker said his employer gave him inadequate notice for a disciplinary hearing that coincided with his daughter's graduation, then proceeded with the hearing in his absence.
He also disputed allegations about inappropriate workplace conduct and mishandling of confidential information, arguing the employer's investigation process was flawed.
Background of the case
The case involved a wealth management company. The worker had worked as an executive since 2015. After several years, the employer heard rumours about the worker planning to move to a competitor firm.
This led to an internal investigation that found the worker had sent confidential client information to his personal email, shared another director's employment contract with a lawyer, and sent inappropriate emails to staff.
The employer scheduled a disciplinary hearing in mid-2019. The worker resigned the day before and said he could not attend as he had his daughter's graduation.
The hearing proceeded without him, resulting in summary dismissal which was later upheld after an appeal hearing.
The court examined evidence showing the worker had stored inappropriate materials on his work computer and conducted unsuitable internet searches during work hours. The investigation also revealed inappropriate conduct towards subordinates.
The court emphasised the seriousness of sharing confidential information:
"[T]he breach of confidence in the present case is especially serious, considering that the information in the [documents] would be highly useful to [the employer's] competitors not only to attract potential clients but also to poach financial advisors."
The court made several significant findings about termination and workplace conduct:
"[A]n employer could terminate an employment contract at any time, and for any reason or for none, and... any right to a hearing could only arise if provided for in the employment contract."
"Even if these illicit materials found their way to [the worker's] work desktop accidentally, any employee, and the [executive] in particular, must take particular care in not mixing the contents of his personal life with his working life."
"[The worker's] conduct amounted to 'conduct tending to bring himself [or the employer] into serious disrepute' under cl 7.3.1 of the ESA."
The worker sought unpaid commissions and amounts in his Lapsed Reserve Account. The employer counterclaimed for overpaid commissions of $75,219.01 and excess bonus of $73,757.
After examining the evidence, the court found the worker had to repay $85,503.69 after setting off the amounts in his Lapsed Reserve Account against what he owed the employer.
The court rejected the worker's argument that the bonus was a fixed sum, finding instead it was tied to performance targets he had not met.
The decision demonstrated the importance of maintaining thorough records of compensation arrangements and workplace misconduct investigations. It also highlighted why employment contracts need to clearly outline termination procedures and performance expectations.
