Since April 2017, the Employment Claims Tribunals (ECT) have heard salary-related and wrongful dismissal disputes between employers and employees. For nearly a decade, the ECT operated largely without published written grounds. That changed in 2026. Between May and July 2026, the ECT released its first five written decisions: JGP v JGQ [2026] SGECT 1, JHU v JHV [2026] SGECT 2, an unreported decision cited here as [2026] SGECT 3, JIQ v JIR [2026] SGECT 4, and JIS v JIT [2026] SGECT 5. Together, they give employers and employees their first real window into how the ECT reasons through disputes that, until now, were rarely explained in detail.
JGP v JGQ [2026] SGECT 1, decided on 15 May 2026, is the most significant of the five. It arose from a group-wide review of medical benefit claims that led to around 40 dismissals across a company and its related entities. The claimant, referred to as Ms C, had submitted 62 reimbursement claims for items such as vitamins, skincare products and an electric toothbrush. Her employer dismissed her for dishonesty, even though she was given full contractual notice. Tribunal Magistrate Jared Kang Chern Wey held that a “due inquiry” under section 14(1) of the Employment Act is required whenever an employer relies on misconduct as the ground for dismissal, whether or not notice is given. He also set out a two-step test for whether a dismissal is “without just cause or excuse”: first, whether the stated reason is true, and second, whether it is sufficient to justify dismissal rather than a lesser penalty. On the facts, dishonesty was not proven, and Ms C was awarded $17,332 in compensation.
JHU v JHV [2026] SGECT 2 concerned a work permit holder who claimed $20,000 in unpaid overtime after working up to 15-hour days for close to two years. The employer denied any overtime had been worked and said no attendance records existed. The Tribunal found for the worker in full, drawing an adverse inference against the employer under section 21(2) of the Employment Claims Act for failing to maintain records required under section 95 of the Employment Act.
JIF v JIG [2026] SGECT 3 involved an HR lead’s claims for a retrenchment benefit and unvested employee share options. Both claims were dismissed. The Tribunal held that its role in reviewing an employer’s exercise of discretion was supervisory, confined to questions of rationality and good faith, rather than a fresh assessment of the merits. The claimant had not shown that the employer’s decisions were irrational or made in bad faith.
JIQ v JIR [2026] SGECT 4 and JIS v JIT [2026] SGECT 5, decided on 10 and 13 July 2026 respectively, both concern the computation of commission payments and, notably, questions on the limitation period applicable to such claims.
What is the Employment Claims Tribunals (ECT)?
The ECT is a specialised tribunal within the State Courts of Singapore that hears salary-related claims and statutory wrongful dismissal claims between employers and employees, generally without the need for lawyers.
Why does the “due inquiry” requirement matter if an employer gives full notice?
JGP v JGQ established that section 14(1) of the Employment Act requires a fair internal process whenever an employer dismisses on the ground of misconduct, regardless of whether notice or salary in lieu is given. Paying notice does not remove this requirement.
What did JHU v JHV establish about employer record-keeping?
It confirmed that employers must maintain attendance records under section 95 of the Employment Act, and that failing to produce such records can result in an adverse inference against the employer under the Employment Claims Act.
Can an ECT decision be appealed?
Yes. A party may apply to the District Court for permission to appeal to the General Division of the High Court on a question of law or jurisdiction. JGP v JGQ is currently the subject of such an application.
What do the two most recent ECT decisions, SGECT 4 and 5, concern?
Both involve disputes over the computation of commission payments, together with related questions on the applicable limitation period for bringing such claims.
Speak to OTP Law Corporation
Employers and employees navigating a dispute before the Employment Claims Tribunals should seek advice tailored to their specific circumstances. Contact OTP Law to discuss how these developments may affect your position.
