Employment tribunal finds audit manager's dismissal unjustified, awards maximum S$30,000

A Singapore Employment Claims Tribunal has found that a regional internal control audit manager was dismissed without just cause or excuse during her probationary period, ruling that her employer failed to prove she had performed poorly.

In grounds of decision dated Tuesday, 28 July 2026, Tribunal Magistrate Joel Tan awarded the claimant, identified only as JIW, the maximum permissible sum of S$30,000, along with S$300 in costs and S$60 in disbursements, against the respondent company, identified as JIX.

According to the judgment, the claimant was employed on 21 April 2025 as a regional internal control audit manager, subject to a six-month probationary period.

On 16 October 2025, shortly before probation was due to expire, she was told her performance had not met the standard required for confirmation and was given two weeks' notice. Her employment ended on 31 October 2025.

The claimant challenged her dismissal on three grounds: that the performance evaluation was procedurally flawed and unsubstantiated; that it was tainted by discrimination linked to her inability to speak Korean, a language used informally among senior colleagues; and that it amounted to retaliation for raising concerns about a proposed restructuring of the regional audit function.

The respondent maintained that the dismissal was based solely on documented performance shortfalls, and denied any link to language or the claimant's earlier internal complaints.

Performance evaluation under scrutiny

The tribunal noted that the respondent's probation process required an overall score of at least 80 percent and an average rating of at least three out of five across ten competencies. The claimant scored 71 percent and 2.4 respectively, both below threshold.

Under the Employment Claims Act 2016, the burden of proving the claimant's poor performance rested with the respondent. The tribunal found this burden was not discharged.

Magistrate Tan noted that the reporting supervisor, referred to as RS, had rated the claimant below average on six of ten competencies but left the justification column in the evaluation form entirely blank. Oral explanations given at the hearing, the tribunal found, amounted to subjective impressions rather than assessments against a defined standard.

Crucially, the tribunal found that RS had not held an initial meeting to explain performance expectations, nor conducted the periodic documented reviews required under the respondent's own probation management process. Without these steps, the claimant had no meaningful opportunity to understand or improve against the standards later used to justify her dismissal.

Goals reassessed one by one

The tribunal examined each of the claimant's five weighted performance goals in turn. On the most heavily weighted goal, covering internal control audit work across roughly 13 subsidiaries, the respondent alleged missed deadlines and formatting errors. The tribunal found these claims unproven, noting the respondent produced no documentary evidence of the alleged formatting deficiencies.

A separate finding accepted that the claimant had failed to comply with a request for interim reporting, but the tribunal ruled this did not justify the 25-point deduction applied, as no material consequence to the audit's completion was shown.

On a financial health check goal, the tribunal similarly found the respondent had not proven that delays or technical errors were attributable to the claimant rather than to dependency on subsidiaries' cooperation.

The tribunal also criticised the respondent's unilateral transfer of a 10 percent weighting from a removed goal onto another goal on which the claimant scored poorly, without informing her, effectively doubling that goal's significance without her knowledge.

On a training-related goal, the tribunal accepted the claimant's account that she believed related sessions fell outside her probationary period, and found no corroborating evidence for the respondent's contrary claim.

Supporting witnesses insufficient

The tribunal also considered evidence from the financial controller and a human resources representative. It found the financial controller's assessment rested on an unstated benchmark, while the human resources evidence, including conversations in which the claimant expressed concern about failing probation, did not amount to an admission of incompetence.

Magistrate Tan wrote that ignorance of a standard and inability to meet it were different matters, adding that treating them as equivalent was precisely what a properly implemented probation process was designed to prevent.

Discrimination and whistleblowing claims dismissed

While the tribunal's finding on performance was sufficient to decide the case, it went on to consider the claimant's other grounds. It accepted in principle that language could form a basis for workplace discrimination but found no objective evidence linking the claimant's dismissal to her lack of Korean proficiency.

On the whistleblowing claim, the tribunal accepted the evidence of the supervisor, financial controller and human resources representative that they were unaware of the claimant's internal restructuring proposal discussions at the time the dismissal decision was made, finding the claimant's suspicion of retaliation to be speculative.

Compensation capped at claim limit

The tribunal calculated that three months of the claimant's gross monthly salary of S$11,500 would have amounted to S$34,500, but the prescribed claim limit for the proceedings was S$30,000, capping her award accordingly.

Magistrate Tan noted he would have awarded a further two months' salary in compensation for harm had the ceiling permitted it, describing the dismissal as sudden and unjustified.