Woman fired for ‘poor performance’ wins Rs 22 lakh after company fails to prove claim

Woman challenges probation dismissal in tribunal

The woman joined the company as an audit manager in April 2025 on a six-month probation. When the probation period ended, she was informed that her employment would not be confirmed, with the company citing unsatisfactory performance as the reason.

Challenging the decision, she took the matter to the Employment Claims Tribunals. She argued that she had never received any formal or informal warning about her work and was judged using performance criteria that had never been shared with her.

She also claimed she was treated unfairly after raising concerns about proposed changes to the firm’s internal audit reporting structure. Additionally, she alleged that she faced discrimination because she did not speak Korean, even though English was the company’s official working language.

The identities of both the employee and the company were withheld in the judgment. They represented themselves during hearings held in May and June 2026.

Company defends decision

The employer maintained that the dismissal was entirely performance-related. It told the tribunal that probationary employees had to secure an overall performance score of at least 80 per cent and an average competency rating of three out of five across 10 core competencies.

According to the company’s assessment, the audit manager scored 71 per cent overall and received an average competency rating of 2.4. But Tribunal Magistrate Joel Tan said the employer had failed to demonstrate that these ratings accurately reflected her actual performance.

The judgment noted that the woman’s supervisor admitted she had not explained the competency rating framework when the employee joined the company. The supervisor had also failed to carry out the formal performance reviews required under the company’s own probation policy.

As a result, the employee was measured against expectations that had never been clearly communicated. The magistrate observed that she had effectively been left to navigate vague qualitative standards without knowing what was required to pass probation.

The tribunal further found that several of the employer’s complaints were unsupported by evidence or related to expectations that had never been properly conveyed. Although the company accused her of missing deadlines, failing to follow instructions and submitting documents with formatting issues, the magistrate pointed out that her supervisor had not criticised the quality of her audit work itself. Instead, most of the concerns revolved around administrative and procedural matters.

While acknowledging that the employee had room for improvement, Magistrate Tan ruled that it was unfair to terminate her employment based on performance standards that had not been adequately explained.

Woman awarded maximum compensation

The tribunal rejected her claims of language discrimination and retaliation for raising concerns, saying there was insufficient evidence to support either allegation. It nevertheless concluded that she had been wrongfully dismissed and awarded her the maximum compensation available under the ECT.

The woman, who earned Singapore Dollar 11,500 a month, was entitled to compensation equal to three months’ salary, amounting to Singapore Dollar 34,500, for her lost income. However, because the tribunal can award a maximum of Singapore Dollar 30,000 (around Rs 22 lakh), that was the amount she received.

Magistrate Tan added that, had it not been for the statutory cap, he would have granted her an additional two months’ salary for the distress caused by the wrongful dismissal, taking the total compensation to Singapore Dollar 57,500. He stressed that employers cannot expect employees to meet performance standards that were never clearly communicated or properly assessed.