JJC v JJD [2026] SGECT 8

Introduction

The Claimant made the present claim under section 14(2) of the Employment Act 1968 (“EA”) against the Respondent company, which is in the business of developing software and applications. Under the Claim Referral Certificate (“CRC”) that had been filed in relation to the claim with the reference number ECT 11477 of 2025 (“ECT 11477”), the sole item of claim relates to the Claimant’s claim for wrongful dismissal, under the 3rd Schedule, Item 1 to the Employment Claims Act 2016 (“ECA”).

Background

The parties do not dispute the following facts:

(a) The Claimant’s employment with the Respondent is evinced by an Employment Agreement dated 1 April 2025 with the Claimant’s commencement date stated as 28 April 2025 (the “Contract”) .

(b) Under the Contract, the Claimant’s role is stated to be that of a manager.

(c) The Claimant’s employment relationship with the Respondent was terminated on 24 October 2025, via a letter of termination issued on the same day (“Termination Letter”). This was enclosed in an email dated 24 October 2025 .

(d) From the Claimant’s commencement date with the Respondent on 28 April 2025 to the date that his employment was terminated on 24 October 2025, the Claimant worked for a period of less than six (6) months with the Respondent (i.e. a total of 5 months and 27 days, including the end date of 24 October 2025).

A brief procedural history of the matter is set out below:

(a) Following the termination of the Claimant’s employment on 24 October 2025, the Claimant submitted a mediation request (“1st mediation request”) at the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (“TADM”) on 27 October 2025.

(b) On 31 October 2025, the Respondent paid the Claimant his salary in lieu of notice (“SILON”), that had been mentioned under the Termination Letter.

(c) The CRC was issued on 21 November 2025 stating that the unresolved specified employment dispute solely relates to the Claimant’s claim under section 14(2) of the EA.

(d) The Claimant then filed the present claim in ECT 11477 on 24 November 2025.

(e) On 30 December 2025, the relevant Learned Assistant Registrar (“AR”) dismissed the Claimant’s claim on the basis that the Claimant is not a “relevant employee” under section 14(2A) of the EA. The Claimant filed an appeal on the Learned AR’s decision.

(f) On 10 February 2026, the appeal was allowed, whereby the relevant Learned Tribunal Magistrate (“TM”) hearing the appeal stated that, “[a]s the requirements to be satisfied for a “relevant employee” under s14(2A) EA were not fully ventilated and considered when the AR made her decision. I make no finding at this stage on the appropriate reference date to be utilised, in determining whether C was a “relevant employee”, as this is a matter which would benefit from a full factual inquiry on the circumstances which led to SILON being paid on 31 Oct 2025, and the benefit of full legal submissions. I should state that parties should be prepared to address this preliminary issue fully, of whether C was a “relevant employee” under s 14(2A) EA, at trial.”.

(g) For completeness, the Learned TM had also highlighted that the Claimant acknowledged that he was, in fact, employed in a managerial/executive position, so the issue of whether the Claimant was employed as such has become moot .

(h) The Claimant subsequently submitted another mediation request (“2nd mediation request”) at the TADM around April 2026 in relation to a separate dispute relating to an entitlement to his hiring bonus. Following the issuance of the relevant CRC in respect of the 2nd mediation request, the Claimant commenced a separate claim with the reference number ECT XYZ of 2026 around May 2026 (“ECT XYZ”) .

Parties’ Positions

A preliminary issue that the parties have raised is whether the Employment Claims Tribunal (“ECT” or “Tribunal”) has the jurisdiction to hear the merits of the Claimant’s claim in ECT 11477.

The Claimant’s position is that his case falls within the ECT’s jurisdiction as he is a “relevant employee”, as defined in section 14(2A) of the EA.

To be specific, the Claimant primarily relies on section 14(2A)(b) of the EA. He claims that he was “an employee employed in a managerial or an executive position who is dismissed without notice and without [SILON]” under the said section. In particular, he argues that, as at the date of the submission of his 1st mediation request at the TADM on 27 October 2025, he had not been paid SILON, which would mean that he would fall within the scope of a “relevant employee” as he was dismissed without notice and without SILON. Fundamental to the Claimant’s case is his argument that the date of the assessment of his status as a “relevant employee” should be the date of the submission of a mediation request at TADM, as mentioned under section 3 of the ECA.

The Respondent strongly disputes the Claimant’s position. The Respondent argues that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear ECT 11477 as the Claimant does not meet the requirements of being a “relevant employee” as he was employed in a managerial position for a period of less than 6 months and was dismissed with SILON. In short, the Respondent claims that the Claimant is not a “relevant employee” as defined under any of the sub-sections of section 14(2A) of the EA. The critical difference between the Claimant’s and Respondent’s arguments is that the Respondent’s position is that the Claimant was terminated with SILON. The Respondent highlights that it had indicated in its Termination Letter that the Claimant’s SILON would be paid, even though it only paid the SILON after the submission of the 1st mediation request. The Respondent highlights that by the time the Claimant filed ECT 11477 on 24 November 2025, he had received his SILON. The Respondent further submits that the date of assessment as to whether the Claimant is a “relevant employee” should not be confined to the date at which the Claimant filed the mediation request at TADM. On the contrary, the Respondent argues that the Tribunal should consider whether the Claimant held the status of a “relevant employee” at “all relevant times”.

Should this Tribunal find that the Claimant is a “relevant employee” under section 14(2A) of the EA, the next issue that arises is whether this Tribunal should hear the separate claim that the Claimant subsequently filed under ECT XYZ together with ECT 11477.

In this regard, the Claimant argues that the matters should be consolidated as ECT XYZ and ECT 11477 arise from the same factual issues with the same evidence to be considered.

In response, the Respondent argues that ECT XYZ and ECT 11477 should not be consolidated as ECT XYZ is a contractual claim in nature and turns on the contractual interpretation of the Claimant’s hiring bonus as set out in a separate agreement. The Respondent claims that ECT XYZ and ECT 11477 are factually and legally distinct, with separate legal remedies. The Respondent argues that since ECT XYZ has been properly constituted as a separate set of proceedings, the Claimant should pursue his claim in ECT XYZ (that was filed 6 months after ECT 11477) separately.

Issues

The following issues arise:

(a) Issue 1: Before this Tribunal can proceed to hear the merits of ECT 11477, it must first be determined whether the Claimant is a “relevant employee”, as defined in section 14(2A) of the EA, for the purposes of section 14(2) of the EA.

(b) Issue 2: In the event it is determined that the Tribunal can proceed to hear the merits of the ECT 11477, the issue is whether the Claimant’s separate claim under ECT XYZ should be consolidated to be heard with ECT 11477.

Issue 1: Whether the Claimant is a “relevant employee”, as defined in section 14(2A) of the EA, for the purposes of section 14(2) of the EA.

Applicable Law

In respect of the Claimant’s claim for wrongful dismissal under section 14(2) of the EA, the Claimant must establish the following before the Tribunal may proceed to determine whether the Claimant had been wrongfully dismissed on the merits of his claim:

(a) First, the Claimant must satisfy the requirements under section 3 of the ECA to attend the compulsory TADM mediation process (which culminates in the issuance of a CRC, as referred to under section 6 of the ECA) prior to the lodging of the claim.

(b) Second, the Claimant must be a “relevant employee” pursuant to section 14(2A) of the EA.

The primary issue that parties differ on is whether the Claimant is a “relevant employee” under section 14(2A) of the EA.

This is a question of whether the Claimant can demonstrate that the circumstances are in place for him to have fulfilled a jurisdictional or precedent fact. As stated in the case of Ng Swee Lang and Another v Sassoon Samuel Bernard and Others [2008] SGCA 7 (“Ng Swee Lang”) at [29], jurisdictional or precedent facts are “facts, the existence of which determines whether or not a tribunal has jurisdiction to hear a matter” . In other words, jurisdictional or precedent facts must exist as “a condition precedent for the application of a statutory standard or the assumption of jurisdiction by an authority to decide the case on its merits” .

It bears mention that not all categories of employees are permitted to file wrongful dismissal claims under section 14 of the EA. If the intention had been to allow all employees to file wrongful dismissal claims without qualifications, express wording such as “all employees” or the generic term “employee” could have been adopted. However, under the EA, only a “relevant employee”, as defined under section 14(2A) may file such a claim.

Section 14(2A) of the EA makes it clear that a “relevant employee” must fall within one of three categories to file a claim under section 14(2) of the EA:

(a) An employee employed in a managerial or an executive position who is (i) dismissed with notice or (ii) dismissed without notice but receives payment of SILON. An express condition is that the employee must also have served for at least 6 months in any position (whether or not a managerial or an executive position) (see section 14(2A)(a) of the EA);

(b) An employee employed in a managerial or an executive position who is dismissed without notice and without SILON (see section 14(2A)(b) of the EA); or

(c) An employee who is not employed in a managerial or an executive position (see section 14(2A)(c) of the EA).

Moreover, under regulation 14(5) of the Employment Claims Regulations 2017 (“ECR”), a claim relating to a wrongful dismissal dispute may be made by an employee who satisfies “all of the following requirements”, which includes an express requirement under regulation 14(5)(c) that the employee must be a “relevant employee within the meaning of section 14(2A) of the [EA]”. The EA, read with the ECR, excludes employees who do not satisfy all of the relevant requirements. As such, to allow a person who does not meet all the criteria in regulation 14(5) of the ECR to bring a claim for wrongful dismissal would be contrary to the plain wording of the said regulation.

Findings

I turn to deal with the issue of whether the Claimant can be considered to be a “relevant employee” under section 14(2A) of the EA.

The Claimant held a managerial role.

First, it is an undisputed fact that the Claimant is considered to have occupied a “managerial” position under section 14(2A) of the EA in the course of his employment with the Respondent .

In Brightway Petrochemical Group Singapore Pte Ltd v Ang Lily [2007] SGHC 154 (“Brightway”), it was held that a determination of whether an employee holds a managerial position is to be made after taking all relevant factors into consideration, including the terms of the contract of employment pertaining to the remuneration, designation, and responsibilities of the employee, as well as his qualifications (see Brightway at [11] and [12]).

Considering the evidence in the present case, I find that the Claimant held a managerial position in the course of his employment with the Respondent:

(a) Both parties do not dispute that the Claimant was a manager who was responsible for making strategic decisions for the Respondent and who was required to have attained a certain level of educational qualifications (in this case, parties indicated that the requirement was that the Claimant was, at minimum, to have a Bachelor’s Degree, although the Claimant holds a Master’s Degree in this case).

(b) The Claimant was paid a relatively high salary of above $17,000, which applied even during his probation period, which was commensurate with the managerial role that he took on. One of the factors that may be considered is that the higher an employee’s salary, the more likely it is that the employee’s role requires him/her to exercise managerial functions (see Brightway at [15]).

In consideration of the above, I am satisfied that the Claimant held a managerial role in the Respondent company for the purposes of section 14(2A) of the EA. In this regard, I would highlight that section 14(2A)(c) of the EA would thus not apply to the Claimant’s case. This is not disputed by the parties.

The Claimant served the Respondent for less than six months.

Second, it is an undisputed fact that the Claimant had served the Respondent for less than six months. The Claimant had only been employed for approximately 5 months and 27 days from the period of 28 April 2025 to 24 October 2025 . As such, section 14(2A)(a) of the EA will not apply to the Claimant’s case as the said section only applies to “relevant employees” who served the Respondent for at least 6 months.

Based on the Second Reading of the Employment (Amendment) Bill on 20 November 2018, the then-Minister for Manpower (Mrs Josephine Teo) (see Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (20 November 2018) vol 94 (“Parliamentary Debates”)) had highlighted that when “the EA was first expanded in 2009 to cover managers and executives, the tripartite partners agreed that managers and executives would only be eligible to claim for wrongful dismissal if they have served at least 12 months” but that the qualifying period would be reduced to six months.

The Claimant was dismissed with SILON.

I turn to consider whether the Claimant may be considered to be a “relevant employee” under section 14(2A)(b) of the EA on the basis that he was “dismissed without notice and without [SILON]”.

The issue turns on whether, in the overall determination of the jurisdictional or precedent fact, the Claimant can be considered to have been a “relevant employee” under section 14(2A)(b) of the EA who had been terminated without SILON.

To answer this question, I ought to stress that parties agree that:

(a) The Termination Letter issued by the Respondent on 24 October 2025 expressly specifies that the Respondent shall pay the Claimant SILON .

(b) The Claimant concedes to having accepted payment of the SILON on 31 October 2025.

Notwithstanding the above, the Claimant claims that he should nevertheless be considered to have been dismissed without SILON since he was not paid his SILON as at the date of submitting the 1st mediation request on 27 October 2025. The Claimant argues that the date of the assessment of his status as a “relevant employee” under section 14(2A) of the EA should be assessed as at the date of the submission of a mediation request at TADM under section 3 of the ECA.

To reiterate, the Respondent strongly disputes this position. The Respondent argues that by the time the Claimant filed ECT 11477 on 24 November 2025, he had received his SILON and the date of assessment as to whether the Claimant is a “relevant employee” should not be confined to the date at which the Claimant filed the mediation request at TADM under section 3 of the ECA. The Respondent takes the position that the consideration of whether an employee is a “relevant employee” is a fact to be determined at “all relevant times”.

Having considered the parties’ positions and the evidence, I set out my observations below.

First, there was no clear case authority or principle of statutory interpretation cited by the Claimant to establish that the Tribunal is limited and/or confined to the date an employee files a mediation request under section 3 of the ECA in its determination of whether an employee satisfies the jurisdictional or precedent fact of being a “relevant employee” who was dismissed without SILON under section 14(2A) of the EA. I elaborate on this below:

(a) As a starting point, section 14(2A)(b) of the EA does not expressly specify that the date of assessment on which a “relevant employee” shall be found or shall be deemed to be found to be dismissed without SILON must be the date in which the employee submits the mediation request under section 3 of the ECA. Section 14(2A) of the EA does not specify that the date of assessment of whether a person is a “relevant employee” is subject to section 3 of the ECA and there is no wording under the said section that suggests this.

(b) On plain reading, section 3 of the ECA does not specify that if an employee is not paid SILON by the date of the submission of the mediation request, he shall be “deemed” to have been dismissed without SILON for the purposes of the assessment of whether he/she is a “relevant employee” under section 14(2A) of the EA.

(c) Based on the Parliamentary Debates, there is also no indication that it was the intention of Parliament to confine the ECT to determining whether an employee is a “relevant employee” under section 14(2A) of the EA as at the point of the submission of the mediation request under section 3 of the ECA.

(d) Moreover, in the introduction of the step of the submission of a mediation request under section 3 of the ECA, there is nothing to suggest in the Parliamentary discourse that the ECT should be confined to the date of the submission of the mediation request in its determination of whether a claimant has satisfied a precedent fact under the EA. I refer to the Second Reading of the Employment Claims Bill on 16 August 2016 where the then-Minister for Manpower (Mr Lim Swee Say) (see Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (16 August 2016) vol 94) explained that the reason why a claimant is required to submit a request for mediation and parties are required to go through mediation before their claims can be heard at the ECT is because “mediation is an effective way of resolving… claims amicably between parties”.

(e) This is further supported by the express statements that had been made by the TADM when the Claimant filed the 1st mediation request. As reflected in the Parliamentary discourse, it is clear that the TADM plays a role that is distinct from that of the ECT, whereby the TADM aims to resolve disputes amicably between parties through mediation while the ECT plays an adjudicatory role in making judgments based on the evidence and relevant law. In this regard, having reviewed the email correspondence relating to the 1st mediation request between TADM and the Claimant (“27 October email” ), I observe that the TADM had set out the following:

(i) an express notice that the party has the responsibility to prove his/her claim in court and the ECT will make a judgment based on evidence and relevant laws; and

(ii) an express statement that the TADM has no influence over the outcome determined by the ECT.

(f) From the above, it is clear that, in practice, the TADM does not make any definitive findings on whether a person constitutes a “relevant employee”, whereby TADM has expressly reminded parties that they have the responsibility for proving their claims in court and TADM has no influence over the outcome determined by the ECT. As such, I was unable to find that the date of the assessment of the Claimant’s status as a “relevant employee” should be the date of the submission of the 1st mediation request.

(g) As a matter of logic, accepting the Claimant’s proposition could potentially lead to absurd results. For example, if the Claimant’s argument is accepted, he would be considered to be a “relevant employee” in the hypothetical scenario where the Respondent had issued a Termination Letter indicating that he shall be paid SILON if he had immediately proceeded to file a mediation request on the date of the Termination Letter on 24 October 2025, even if the Respondent had then proceeded to pay him SILON on 25 October 2025. Such a scenario would ignore factors such as the time required for a company to complete its administrative/payroll processes or the time required for a bank to transfer funds from the company to its employee. This could not have been an outcome that Parliament had intended.

In consideration of the above, I am of the view that the Claimant had failed to establish that the ECT is bound and/or confined to the date in which an employee files a mediation request under section 3 of the ECA in determining the status of a “relevant employee” under section 14(2A) of the EA.

Turning to the issue of determining whether the Claimant may be found to be a “relevant employee” under section 14(2A) of the EA, I considered the guidance that the Court of Appeal had set out in Ng Swee Lang at [36] where the Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court’s approach of considering the case “on its own facts… against the overall purpose of the legislation”, as well as Parliament’s intention, in considering jurisdictional or precedent facts.

Based on the facts of the present case, the Claimant failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that he was a “relevant employee” under section 14(2A)(b) of the EA. Having considered the positions of both parties, and the evidence, I find that the Claimant had been terminated with SILON. I elaborate on this below:

(a) Prior to the submission of the 1st mediation request on 27 October 2025, the Termination Letter issued by the Respondent on 24 October 2025 had unequivocally stated that the Respondent shall pay the Claimant SILON . I was of the view that the Respondent had crystallised its position in electing to terminate the Claimant with his SILON, given that the Respondent had stated that the Claimant would be paid his SILON on or about the date of the Termination Letter on 24 October 2025.

(b) As at the date the Claimant filed the mediation request pursuant to section 3 of the ECA, the Claimant was notified that he would be terminated with SILON. The Respondent had, by that date, committed in writing to paying the Claimant SILON and conveyed that this was the mode in which the Claimant would be terminated. I note the Claimant does not dispute that he was aware of the material fact as at the point of his submission of the 1st mediation request, having received the Termination Letter. In this regard, the Claimant exhibited an email that he had written on 30 October 2025 acknowledging that the Respondent intended to send him the final termination payment and asking when it would be credited to his account . The Claimant’s email is inconsistent with his position that he was dismissed without SILON, given that he was aware he was being terminated with SILON and enquired about when payment would be made to him.

(c) By the time of the issuance of the CRC on 21 November 2025 and by the time the Claimant filed ECT 11477, the Respondent had paid the Claimant his SILON on 31 October 2025. The Claimant concedes to having accepted payment of the SILON on 31 October 2025 . I was of the view that the Respondent thus fulfilled the pre-existing obligation that it had already committed to under the Termination Letter in electing to terminate the Claimant with SILON. The Respondent had also indicated that the delay in paying the Claimant his SILON was due to payroll processing issues .

(d) On the facts of this case, I was of the view that it would be artificial to make a finding of fact that the Claimant was terminated without SILON, when he had received his SILON in full and accepted such full payment of his SILON by 31 October 2025. In oral evidence, the Claimant also confirmed that he had not raised any objections at the time he had received the payment of his SILON. I find that this was a material fact to consider in the overall assessment of whether the Claimant was a “relevant employee” under section 14(2A) of the EA, there being no express requirement for the Tribunal to determine the Claimant’s status as a “relevant employee” solely with regard to the date of the submission of the 1st mediation request.

(e) Critically, the Claimant has also accepted that the TADM did not make any pronouncement or finding that he was confirmed to be a “relevant employee” under section 14(2A) of the EA. There is no such statement on the face of the CRC or in any contemporaneous document to demonstrate this. He also confirmed that there was nothing stated by the TADM that would oust the Tribunal’s ability to decide on the issue of jurisdiction, which would include the question of whether he is a “relevant employee”. Having reviewed the email correspondence relating to the 1st mediation request, I note that the mediator from TADM had made no statement or determination on whether the Claimant is a “relevant employee” in the 27 October email . In the 27 October email, there is also an express disclaimer that, “[the] information and/or comments provided or expressed in this message are not to be construed as legal advice and are not intended to replace legal advice… TADM shall not be responsible for any loss or damage arising from your reliance on any information and/or comments provided or expressed in this message”.

(f) Taking the relevant Parliamentary Debates into consideration, it is noted that Parliament had intended to set out qualifying criteria before an employee may file a wrongful dismissal claim (for example, through reducing the period that an employee had to serve an employer from 12 to 6 months). Read with the express wording of section 14(2A)(b) of the EA, an employee employed in a managerial or an executive position who is dismissed without notice and without SILON would meet such qualifying criteria. Based on the plain wording of section 14(2A)(b) of the EA, it appears that the purpose is to protect vulnerable employees who have been terminated without notice and who have not been paid any SILON. In contrast, on the facts, the Claimant, being an employee employed in a managerial position who was dismissed with SILON, is no longer in the vulnerable position that section 14(2A)(b) of the EA was designed to address. As the Respondent had pointed out, the Claimant had not adduced evidence that the delay in payment caused him actual financial loss . As such, he would not meet such qualifying criteria in the context of the overall purpose of Parliament to exclude certain employees from filing claims under section 14(2) of the EA.

In consideration of the above, based on the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that, for the purposes of section 14(2A)(b) of the EA, the Claimant was dismissed without notice but received SILON.

The Claimant is not a “relevant employee” under section 14(2A) of the EA.

In summary, based on the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that:

(a) The Claimant was an employee in a managerial position;

(b) The Claimant was dismissed without notice but received SILON; and

(c) The Claimant had served the Respondent for less than 6 months.

In view of the above, the Claimant has not established, on a balance of probabilities, that the Claimant was a “relevant employee”. To be specific:

(a) The Claimant is not a “relevant employee” under section 14(2A)(a) of the EA, as he was employed in a managerial position but served the Respondent for less than 6 months.

(b) The Claimant is not a “relevant employee” under section 14(2A)(b) of the EA as he was dismissed without notice but received SILON.

(c) The Claimant is not a “relevant employee” under section 14(2A)(c) of the EA as he was employed in a managerial position.

For completeness, during the relevant proceedings, the Claimant had suggested that he cannot be considered to have been terminated with SILON since he had not been paid by the Respondent within three days pursuant to section 22 of the EA. However, in oral evidence during the trial, he confirmed that he was no longer pursuing this argument in that his position on jurisdiction did not depend on the breach of section 22 of the EA. In any event, I was of the view that the Respondent’s failure to pay the Claimant within three days would not lead to a finding that the Claimant had been terminated without SILON under section 14(2A) of the EA. This is on the premise that section 14(2A) of the EA is not subject to section 22 of the EA. Section 22 of the EA does not specify that a failure to pay SILON within three days shall be deemed a dismissal without SILON for the purposes of section 14(2A). This reading is supported by the structure of the ECA, whereby a breach of section 22 of the EA directly gives rise to a specified statutory dispute under paragraph 17 of the Second Schedule of the ECA, which is distinct from wrongful dismissal claims under the Third Schedule.

On balance, based on the facts of the case, I am unable to find that the Claimant is a “relevant employee” under section 14(2A) of the EA. Considering section 14(2A) of the EA in the context of the relevant Parliamentary Debates, the Claimant has failed to meet the criteria of being a “relevant employee” to bring the claim under section 14(2A) of the EA. As such, the Claimant does not have a statutory right to file a claim for wrongful dismissal under section 14 of the EA. This is consistent with the express wording of section 14 of the EA, which only permits “relevant employees” specified under section 14(2A) of the EA to bring wrongful dismissal claims, failing which, one is not eligible to make such a claim. Section 22(7) of the ECA provides that where the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine a claim, the claim must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. ECT 11477 is thus dismissed on the basis that it is not a claim within this Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

Issue 2: In the event it is determined that the Tribunal can proceed to hear the merits of the ECT 11477, whether the Claimant’s separate claim under ECT XYZ should be consolidated to be heard with the present claim in ECT 11477.

In consideration of the finding that the Claimant is not a “relevant employee” under section 14(2A) of the EA and the consequent dismissal of ECT 11477 for lack of jurisdiction, it is not necessary for me to consider whether ECT 11477 should be consolidated to be heard together with ECT XYZ.

Conclusion