Unlike the first of the two wrongful dismissal cases we handled in July 2024, the second one had a satisfactory outcome. Our client, Monir (not his real name) won his case at the Employment Claims Tribunal (ECT).

In late 2023, Monir was thrilled to secure a new job at a company we will call Secondi, after working for another company (“Primi”), where he was short-paid for four years. Once settled into Secondi, Monir had a chance to claim back some of the arrears from Primi without fear of retaliation. Under the rules, Monir could only claim for the preceding twelve months’ of underpayment, and that’s why we say “some of the arrears”. In accordance with procedure, the claim was filed with the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) a unit linked to the Ministry of Manpower (MOM).

While his salary claim at TADM against Primi progressed, he eased into the role of a general construction worker at Secondi. However, he soon realised that Secondi too was underpaying him for rest day work and overtime. For working on rest days at the management’s request, Secondi paid him only the equivalent of his basic rate of pay ($30) instead of double the daily rate of pay ($60) mandated by the law. As for overtime work, what Monir received did not correspond with the number of hours worked.

Despite discovering this, Monir stayed on the job with Secondi. Having transferred from Primi only recently, changing jobs again would not look good on his resumé. Monir was also acutely aware that once a claim was launched he would almost surely lose his job and Secondi would not give him permission to transfer, without which, he would have to go back to Bangladesh. Repatriation would jeopardise his ongoing claim on Primi.

Dismissal

Everything changed on 4 March 2024 when he was suddenly called to Secondi’s office, and a staff member there accused him of misconduct. Monir denied the allegation, but the company nevertheless handed him a termination letter. It said:

This is to inform you that your service as a Construction Worker is no longer required with effect from 04 March 2024 as you did instigate 4 other workers to defer from work due to Salary and Bonus issue. As a result of this, the project faced slow progression and tight handover schedule.

(Emphasis added)

Understandably upset about suddenly losing his new job, Monir consulted with TWC2 as we had already been helping him with his Primi salary claim. He explained to us that the allegation in Secondi’s termination letter was false.

We advised him thus: Singapore’s law on wrongful dismissal is that, when an employee is dismissed for misconduct, the employer has the burden of proof to show that (1) there was indeed misconduct on the employee’s part and (2) there was a due inquiry to give the employee an opportunity to be heard. If the allegation was false, as Monir claimed, he might succeed in a wrongful dismissal claim.

Intimidation

While Monir was contemplating whether to pursue a wrongful dismissal, Secondi hurriedly purchased an air ticket for Monir’s repatriation, ignoring Monir’s explanation that he still had a salary claim against Primi and therefore should remain in Singapore to pursue the matter. To that, a staff member of Secondi told him that they would bill him $850 a month for accommodation should he continue to remain in Singapore. Another staff member told Monir that they would lodge a report to MOM and the Police to have him barred from working here again.

Each time he received these threats, Monir sought advice from TWC2, and we assured him that these were empty threats arising from Secondi’s ignorance of the law and that he should simply ignore them.

However, and making matters worse, the employer’s threat to ban him should he resist repatriation was reportedly echoed by the TADM mediator. Monir told us that the TADM mediator (whom he had known from the ongoing Primi case) allegedly tried to dissuade him from filing a wrongful dismissal claim on the ground that this would prompt the employer to lodge a complaint against him, thereby making it difficult for Monir to find a new job in Singapore. Monir felt that by saying this in a way that sounded as if that was a perfectly legitimate way for his employer to act, the TADM mediator was reinforcing the employer’s pressure rather than advising him on his rights.

TWC2 now felt that we had to intervene to inform TADM that Monir had given Secondi (through WhatsApp) a valid reason for remaining in Singapore and that he had told Secondi not to purchase an air ticket for him; despite that, the employer ignored him, bought an air ticket and even reported him to the police for refusing to leave. We expressed our view that the mediator could have exercised better judgment in this matter rather than simply echoing the employer’s position.

This was resolved quite quickly and TADM gave Monir the opportunity to look for yet another job. TADM also ensured that Secondi would pay for his accommodation until he found a new employer.

Even so, on the day of the flight purchased by Secondi, Secondi followed through with their threat and called the police on Monir for refusing to leave Singapore. Fortunately for Monir, the police officer who arrived at his dormitory was quick to check with MOM, receiving confirmation that Monir had a legitimate reason to refuse repatriation. Monir was not required to take the flight.

Despite all these pressures, Monir remained firm in his resolve to get some justice despite the emotional stress he was under. It is common for workers like him to cave into their employer’s threats and abandon their rightful claims.

Mediation at TADM

Shortly after the repatriation fiasco, Monir went ahead and filed a wrongful dismissal claim against Secondi. He also filed a new salary claim – this time against Secondi over his rest day pay, etc.

The latter (salary claim against Secondi) was resolved through TADM mediation, with Secondi paying Monir $400, which covered most of the balance for the rest day salary and overtime pay. Monir also suggested that he would be willing to settle the wrongful dismissal issue should Secondi pay him $2,000, equivalent to about two-and-a-half times his basic salary. However, Secondi refused to accept that the dismissal was wrongful, and the matter was then escalated to the Employment Claims Tribunal (ECT) for judgement.

To the Tribunal

Between April and July 2024, while Monir’s claim was being processed at TADM and in the lead-up to the Tribunal hearing, TWC2 met with him numerous times. We assisted him in preparing his statement, evidence, and other documents required by ECT; gave him practice in explaining his claim orally to the Tribunal; and helped him navigate his online ECT account to retrieve notifications and access the documents that Secondi had submitted in their defence.

As mentioned above, during this time, TADM granted Monir permission to look for a new job. He found one, and we will call his newest employer Terti. It was a huge relief for him to be no longer jobless. Besides having new duties to occupy his mind rather than worrying all day about the outcome of the ECT hearing, having a steady income to fall back on in case the claim was unsuccessful gave Monir a sense of security.

Following two Case Management Conferences in May and June, the Tribunal hearing took place in mid-July via video conference. The hearing started with the magistrate asking Secondi’s representative to clarify the meaning of “instigate” and “defer” in the termination letter. Secondi responded that Monir had told other workers they were entitled to “thrice” the daily rate when working on a rest day and a bonus at the end of each contract year. Monir immediately denied this, explaining to the judge that he knew the rest day pay rule well and that it was double the daily rate (if it was at the employer’s request), not thrice. Why would he lie to his coworkers? he asked rhetorically.

Monir did not deny discussing salary matters with his coworkers, but he only told them what the law stated — that they were entitled to double the daily rate. Monir’s explanation must have sounded reasonable and credible to the magistrate who was aware that Monir would know such things as his salary claim for rest day pay against his former employer, Primi, was concluded only recently. She was the magistrate over that case too.

Secondi’s attempt to blame Monir for causing a delay in the project work also proved futile. Although they provided a letter from their business client to show there was indeed a delay, they could not prove that Monir had anything to do with it.

Side notes

There were two noteworthy exchanges during the hearing. The first concerned Monir’s employment contract, if any. When the magistrate asked Secondi if they had submitted into evidence Monir’s employment contract, Secondi said that they had. However, no contract was in the evidence bundle submitted by Secondi. While the company respresentative shuffled around looking for the contract, Monir told the magistrate, “I never signed a contract”, meaning there was no contract to begin with.

It couldn’t have been helpful to the employer’s case to be asserting that they had submitted a copy of the employment contract when not only was it not in the evidence bundle, but did not ever exist. Moreover, Section 95A(2) of the Employment Act stipulates that employers should provide employees with key employment terms within the first 14 days of the employee starting work. Functionally, an employment contract fulfills the same requirement, and the absence of such may represent a failure by the employer to comply with law. Nonetheless, the judge decided to move on as there were no disputes over contractual terms.

The second notable exchange involved Monir’s new job with Terti. During the hearing, Monir informed the judge that Secondi had contacted his new employer to badmouth him. Monir was appalled to learn this from his new employer, who showed good judgment in deciding to disregard Secondi’s malicious communication. Upon hearing this, the judge rebuked Secondi and advised Monir that should the new employer decide to dismiss him based on Secondi’s remarks, it would also constitute a wrongful dismissal.

Victory

In the end, after weighing the evidence, the magistrate ruled in Monir’s favour, stating that Secondi had not met its burden of proof to show that the allegation was true. Thus, the dismissal was wrongful. Monir was awarded compensation: three months’ salary for loss of income; and an extra month’s salary for the harm caused by Secondi’s wrongful accusations and for punishing Monir for doing something (informing his co-workers of the law) he was perfectly entitled to do.

TWC2 sees the ECT decision as entirely correct. For all their economic power over migrant workers, employers should still act ethically and within the law. Making up spurious reasons for dismissal is not acceptable and flies in the face of natural justice.

While we can view this outcome in a rational way, for Monir – and for the volunteers who helped him through the journey – it was personal. Very personal. When the hearing concluded, Monir was overwhelmed with relief and joy. Seeing him like this was incredibly satisfying for our volunteers too after all the hours they spent assisting him over the past four months. We thank him for his bravery to stick this one out and for taking us along on this four-month journey, which will serve as an example to encourage other wrongfully dismissed migrant workers to seek justice.

5949