By Leonard Loh
Key Takeaway: In 2026, Singapore’s Employment Claims Tribunal published its first-ever written decisions: twelve in all to-date. Like the five golden rings in the famous Christmas carol, five core principles emerge from these cases. Employers should particularly take note.
The Employment Claims Tribunal (“ECT”) published twelve written decisions between May and August 2026 — its first since assuming wrongful dismissal jurisdiction in 2019. These decisions address wrongful dismissal, overtime pay, retirement, constructive dismissal, salary deductions and more. This article identifies the five important rules that emerge from these decisions.
1. Full Contractual Compliance Is Not Sufficient
The ECT conducts a de novo, merits-based inquiry into whether a dismissal was “without just cause or excuse” under section 14(2) of the Employment Act 1968 (“EA”): JGP v JGQ [2026] SGECT 1. This is a statutory cause of action, which is distinct from a common law claim. Paying notice or salary in lieu does not immunise a dismissal from statutory scrutiny. In JJF v JJG [2026] SGECT 9, the Tribunal made it clear that every dismissal – even one effected in full contractual compliance – is subject to inquiry into whether there was a substantively justified cause.
2. Say What You Mean, Prove What You Say
Where an employer states a reason for dismissal, it bears the burden of proving that reason and is generally confined to it: an ex post facto justification cannot become the historical cause, as JGP v JGQ [2026] SGECT 1 and JJF v JJG [2026] SGECT 9 make clear. Where no reason is given, the employee bears the burden but may rely on circumstantial evidence. The corollary is that, if misconduct is alleged, “due inquiry” is required even where notice is given.
Probation is also not a free pass. In JIW v JIX [2026] SGECT 7, a dismissal during probation was found wrongful because performance expectations were never communicated and the employer’s own review process was not followed. The Tribunal will however not second-guess a genuine assessment of suitability and will not “sit as a superior manager”.
3. Keep Your Records, or Lose Your Case
Two decisions hammer home the evidential importance of proper record-keeping. In JHU v JHV [2026] SGECT 2, the ECT drew an adverse inference against a restaurant that failed to produce attendance records as required under section 95 of the EA, awarding the full overtime claim of SGD 20,000. In JKB v JKC [2026] SGECT 11, the Tribunal scrutinised an employer’s reliance on a loan agreement to justify salary deductions from a migrant worker. The lesson for employers is simple: if you cannot produce records to support your position, the Tribunal may well accept the employee’s account. The statutory obligation to maintain records is not administrative box-ticking; it is the foundation of an employer’s defence.
4. Retirement Is Not an Exit Button
Reaching the statutory retirement age (currently 64, for employees who attain 63 years of age on or after 1 July 2026) does not automatically terminate the employment contract. In JIS v JIT [2026] SGECT 5, the employer purported to “retire” an area manager without notice three months after he turned 63; the ECT held this was a repudiatory breach. The employer must still give contractual notice or salary in lieu. Re-employment discussions under the Retirement and Re-employment Act 1993 must be conducted in good faith, and the offer for re-employment must be procedurally and substantively reasonable.
5. The Implied Duty of Care for Employee Health and Safety Encompasses Welfare Needs
In JJH v JJI [2026] SGECT 10, an employee of 17 years who survived cancer resigned after her employer persistently refused to engage with her doctors’ recommendations. The ECT held that the employee had involuntarily resigned, i.e., the employee was forced to resign by the employer’s conduct and did not do so voluntarily. This statutory test of voluntariness is distinct from the common law conception of constructive dismissal, which requires the employee to establish a repudiatory breach of contract.
In this regard, the Tribunal applied (and arguably, extended) the “well established” implied duty of care for employee health and safety and stated that employers must, whilst preserving the operational integrity of the enterprise, provide “latitude for the accommodation of genuine welfare needs”. This is perhaps motivated by the Tribunal’s citation of the following passage from Professor Hugh Collins which appears to suggest the Tribunal’s strong push to recognise the implied term of mutual trust and confidence in employment contracts: “employment requires subordination of the worker to the direction of the employer or employing organization and that the expectations of the parties include a degree of co-operation, fair treatment, and performance of both sides of the bargain in good faith. The terms implied by law typically spell out in more detail the structure of the contract of employment, with [the employee’s] duty of obedience and performance in good faith on one side, and [the employer’s] duty of care and not to destroy mutual trust and confidence on the other”.
It remains to be seen whether, in a clash between operational integrity and genuine welfare needs, which side will prevail. The Tribunal sought to answer this by stating that “internal policies and operational priorities must yield, where the circumstances demand it, to the duty to take reasonable care of an employee’s health and safety” but yet the “duty does not demand that an employer capitulate to every request at the expense of its legitimate business requirements”. It thus appears that it will boil down to a balancing exercise and, ultimately, the question of whether there was “just cause or excuse” in the termination or alleged involuntary resignation.
Conclusion
With leave to appeal granted in several of these cases, appellate guidance will follow. However, the gist of these decisions is that employment-related decisions must be deliberate, evidence-based and properly documented – these core principles are unlikely to be disturbed on appeal and must serve as the guiding principles for all employers.
For More Information
If you have any questions about this article, please contact Selvam LLC Director Leonard Loh if you would like to discuss these updates.
About Duane Morris & Selvam LLP
Duane Morris & Selvam LLP is the joint law venture between Duane Morris LLP and Selvam LLC, with its headquarters in Singapore. By way of its global platform and extensive range of legal services, the firm helps companies conduct business in and out of Asia, the United States, Latin America, the United Kingdom and beyond. In addition to the excellent skills of its lawyers, clients benefit from the cultural fluency and key relationships that the firm has developed over many years of practising law throughout the region. The firm has a presence in the key markets of Southeast Asia, including Singapore, Shanghai, Sydney, Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh, as well as an office in Myanmar. Supporting these regional offices, the firm operates a series of country desks for India, Korea, and Japan. It is regularly ranked among the region’s leading law firms by Chambers & Partners, The Legal 500 and IFLR1000.