Court examines employer's communication and documentation
A Magistrate's Court in Singapore recently dealt with a case involving an alleged wrongful dismissal. The dispute centred on a worker's claim that her termination was unjustified, lacking proper basis and conducted without due inquiry into her alleged performance issues.
This case raised important questions about what constitutes proper notice, documentation of poor performance, and the application of employment guidelines in Singapore.
The worker argued that her dismissal was unfair and in breach of her employment contract. She claimed that her employer failed to provide adequate warning or opportunity for improvement before terminating her employment.
The dispute involved a worker who had been employed at a chain of restaurants for over a decade. Starting as a management trainee in 2008, she had risen through the ranks to become a restaurant manager. The employer operated a chain of restaurants under the "Gyu-Kaku" brand.
In September 2022, the worker's employment was terminated. The employer maintained that the dismissal was justified due to the worker's unsatisfactory work performance over time. They pointed to several incidents and documents as evidence of the worker's poor performance.
The court examined several key pieces of evidence, including a demotion letter from 2018, a warning letter from 2020, an incident involving a computer repair, and a customer complaint from 2022. These documents and events formed the basis of the employer's argument for termination.
The warning letter, issued in September 2020, played a significant role in the case. It stated:
"Based on our discussion, we have confirmed your hands-off approach and lack of responsibility in handling staff issues at the outlet, thus resulting in the loss of manpower due to low morale at the outlet you are responsible for, and dereliction of your duty as an outlet manager."
The worker had signed this letter, acknowledging receipt and accepting its contents. The court viewed this as an important piece of documentation supporting the employer's case.
Another incident involved the repair of a restaurant computer without proper authorisation. The employer's managing director expressed concern about the expensive weekend rate for the repair and the lack of approval for the expenditure. In a group chat message, the managing director wrote:
"I received invoice from SAKURA now. It's very expensive. Cos it's weekend today. Of course, we should do the necessary repairs, but are you ordering with an understanding of the contract? Do you know any special weekend rates? Who approved this high payment?"
The court found that this incident showed a failure to follow company policy regarding approval for repairs.
The court emphasised that while formal documentation of performance issues is beneficial, it's not always necessary for justifying termination.
The judge stated: "In my view, the evidence of [the managing director] and the phone messages on the Computer Incident show that this was one instance of unsatisfactory work performance which can be taken into account by [the employer] in their assessment of whether to dismiss [the worker]."
A significant aspect of the case was the interpretation of the Tripartite Guidelines on Wrongful Dismissal, issued by Singapore's Ministry of Manpower. These guidelines provide different standards for dismissals due to misconduct versus poor performance.
The judge explained: "Guideline 6, dealing with dismissal on the basis of poor performance, is relevant. Under Guideline 6, the dismissal must be with notice, and [the employer] needs to substantiate if poor performance is relied on as reason for the dismissal. However, unlike Guideline 5 for dismissal on basis of misconduct, there is no reference to the holding of an inquiry before [the employer] can dismiss [the worker] for poor performance."
This distinction is important for understanding how performance-related dismissals are handled under Singapore's employment laws.
After reviewing all the evidence, the court ruled in favour of the employer, finding that the dismissal was not wrongful. The judge concluded:
"In my view, considered together, the 1st Warning Letter, the Computer Incident, and the Customer Complaint do afford [the employer] with sufficient basis and constitute substantiation of [the worker's] poor performance."
The court also highlighted an often-overlooked aspect of the Tripartite Guidelines:
"As both [worker] and [employer] have a right to contractually terminate employment with notice, dismissals with notice are presumed not to be wrongful."
This presumption means that when proper notice is given, it's up to the worker to prove that a dismissal was wrongful, rather than the employer having to justify the dismissal.
Lastly, the judge noted:
"To succeed in claiming that a dismissal with notice is wrongful (where no reason is given for the dismissal), [the worker] must substantiate a wrongful reason for the dismissal. Wrongful reasons include discrimination, deprivation of benefit, or to punish [the worker] for exercising his employment right."
This clarification provides guidance for both employers and workers in understanding what makes a dismissal wrongful, even when proper notice is given. The case serves as a reminder of the importance of clear communication, proper documentation, and adherence to employment guidelines in managing workplace relationships and handling terminations.
