Wrongful Dismissal Claim Requests Refused by Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management

Under the Employment Claims Act (ECA), wrongful dismissal claims must be filed within one month from the last day of employment. They must then undergo mediation at the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM). The intention is for mediation to be the first line of response, failing which claims can be adjudicated at the Employment Claims Tribunals (ECT).

Each year, about 60 employees, or 6% of those seeking TADM mediation services for wrongful dismissal claims, exceeded the time limit for filing. While such claims are no longer eligible for mediation under the ECA, TADM still assists both parties to resolve the disputes if they were prepared to settle the matter amicably.

For claims within the time limit, TADM assesses the facts of each claim based on the Tripartite Guidelines on Wrongful Dismissal. If TADM assesses the case to be unsubstantiated, it explains to the claimant the reasons and does not continue with the mediation process. Usually, this is because the facts as reported by the claimant showed that the employer had contractually terminated the employment in accordance with the Employment Act or the employment contract, and the employee could not cite any other facts suggesting that the termination was wrongful.

Some claimants withdraw their case at this stage, after hearing TADM's assessment. Others continue their case at the ECT. TADM's approach of referring cases to ECT without mediation reduces potential burden on employers, who should not have to attend mediation for unsubstantiated claims. It also does not affect claimants' rights in any way. About 130 cases each year, or 12% of all wrongful dismissal claims, were referred to the ECT in this way. The outcomes at the ECT generally validate our mediators' assessment. A large majority of the cases were either dismissed by the Magistrate or withdrawn by the claimants at the ECT – an indication that the process is working well as intended.

In addition to robust in-house training on the law and the dispute resolution process, all TADM mediators undergo training by the Singapore Mediation Centre. Many of TADM's mediators have prior HR experience from varied sectors or were previously employed in the former Labour Court. TADM mediators also participate in continuing education, including studying and learning from the grounds of decisions issued by the ECT. This fosters a culture of continuous learning and ensures continuous alignment with the Courts in facilitating a fair outcome for both claimants and respondents.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for his answer. Just a few supplementary questions. I believe the Senior Minister of State said 6% of the wrongful dismissal claims that go into TADM had lapsed because they do not meet the time bar and 12% are referred to ECT. So, that still leaves 82%. Of the remaining 82%, I am just wondering how many are actually dropped due to lack of evidence and how many are actually successful, whereby TADM upholds that there had been wrongful dismissals? Just wondering if I could have that statistic.

My second question is to ask the Senior Minister of State if he could characterise what the lack of evidence issue really is in most cases. Is it a lack of, for example, written email or audio-graphic or video-graphic evidence? Is that usually the reason why the cases cannot be moved forward?

Sir, TADM does not actively track cases that are assisted on a voluntary basis, as I have said. Once they exceed the time bar, then, it is up to the parties to see if they want to proceed with some mediation by TADM, on a voluntary basis. TADM is prepared to assist them if they are both willing to still have a conversation to resolve the issue amicably. The answer is, we do not track the cases that are assisted on a voluntary basis. It is probably going to be a biased tracking anyway, for those who are prepared to proceed.

In terms of the evidence where the wrongful dismissal does not have sufficient evidence, usually, as I have said, it is due to cases where the contractual terms are the reason for the termination and the claimant cannot substantiate sufficient evidence. For example, the evidence referred to would be documentary proof, it could be email correspondence. Sometimes, they are also unable to cite specific incidences in which they believe that they are wrongfully dismissed. These are the kinds of things that the TADM team look at when it assesses the ground for dismissal.