A woman in Singapore, terminated for alleged poor performance during her probation, successfully challenged her dismissal in court. The Employment Claims Tribunal awarded her S$30,000, ruling that her employer failed to clearly communicate the performance standards she was expected to meet.
A woman in Singapore has been awarded S$30,000 (around Rs 19 lakh) after challenging her dismissal in court. Her company terminated her employment while she was on probation, citing poor performance, but they were unable to substantiate these allegations in front of the tribunal.
The lady claimed that because she had never been informed that her work fell short of expectations, she was treated unjustly. She further asserted that the corporation had failed to provide a clear explanation of the criteria she was required to fulfil.
The lady was put on a six-month probationary term after joining the firm in April 2025, according to TV network CNA. By the conclusion of that time, she was notified by the employer that her job was being terminated due to "poor performance."
Related Articles
She claimed the ruling was unjust and brought the case to Singapore's Employment Claims Tribunal (ECT). The woman refuted the performance claims made by the firm. Additionally, she claimed that she was fired for acting as a "whistleblower" during a project.
Additionally, she said that although though English was the primary language utilised at work, her incapacity to speak Korean had worked against her. She said that she was evaluated according to criteria that had never been disclosed to her and that she had never received a written or verbal warning prior to being dismissed.
Tribunal magistrate Joel Tan said employers cannot expect workers to meet standards that were never clearly communicated. “An employer who has not made its performance standards clear cannot then rely on an employee’s non-conformity with those standards as evidence of unsuitability."
The magistrate concluded that the employee had been evaluated using criteria that were never explained to her, even though he acknowledged that she still had space to grow. He, however, denied her allegations that her dismissal was due to reprisal for being a whistleblower or due to linguistic discrimination.
The woman was entitled to three months of gross salary, which came to S$34,500. However, under the tribunal’s compensation limit, she was awarded S$30,000, which is approximately Rs 19 lakh.
