Singapore Tribunal Clarifies That Employers Must Prove Just Cause If Terminating Employees For Failing Probation

This is Part 2 of a three-part client alert series examining recent Singapore employment law decisions of practical relevance to employers and in-house HR/legal teams.  
 
This Part focuses on the standard expected of employers when managing and terminating probationary employees for poor performance.

Background

In JIW v. JIX [2026] SGECT 7, the Employment Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal) considered a claim concerning the dismissal of a probationary employee for poor performance. The claimant was employed by the respondent as a regional internal control audit manager, subject to a six-month probationary period, at a gross monthly salary of S$11,500. On 16 October 2025, shortly before her probation expired, she was informed that her performance had not met the standard for confirmation and was given two weeks’ written notice of termination, with her last day being 31 October 2025.

She brought a claim under section 14(2) of the Employment Act 1968 for dismissal without just cause or excuse, alleging, among other things, that the poor performance allegations were unsubstantiated and procedurally deficient, that she had received no prior warnings, that no probation review meeting was held, and that she only learned of the negative ratings on the day of termination. The respondent’s probation framework required an overall score of at least 80% on performance goals and an average rating of at least 3 out of 5 across 10 competencies. The claimant scored 71% and an average of 2.4.

Outcome: The employee’s claim was allowed. The Tribunal held that the claimant was likely to remain employed for a further three months under an extended probation (entitling her to S$34,500), but the award was capped at the Tribunal’s S$30,000 claim limit, plus S$300 costs and S$60 disbursements. 

The Tribunal’s key findings

1. Wrongful dismissal – burden of proof on employer
    
   Under section 27(2)(b) of the Employment Claims Act 2016, the employer bore the burden of proving that the dismissal was for just cause because the claimant fell short of the standard for probation confirmation.
   
   On the facts, the Tribunal found that the employer failed to satisfy the burden.
2. Performance standards must be clear and communicated

   
   Employers have latitude to calibrate suitability standards for a role, and a tribunal should not act as a “superior manager” second-guessing that calibration. However, an employer cannot penalise a probationer for failing to meet a standard it never articulated and could not reasonably expect the probationer to discern, save where the failings amount to gross incompetence or the employee’s seniority implies a pre-existing understanding of competent performance.

   In this case, the Tribunal found the employer had not proven that the claimant’s scores and ratings were assessed against standards that were sufficiently clear and communicated. The claimant received no prior warnings, no probation review meeting was held and she learned of the negative assessment only on the day of termination. 

Comments and conclusion

This decision confirms that probation is not a “free pass” to dismiss: employers bear the burden of proving just cause, and this burden cannot be discharged where performance standards are never clearly communicated or documented. Employers should:

• Consider, first and foremost, whether it may be more appropriate, in the circumstances, to terminate the employment by giving the contractual notice of termination without providing any reasons. Where reasons are given by the employer, the employer must substantiate those reasons, failing which the employee may have a stronger claim for wrongful dismissal.
• Make it a practice to communicate performance expectations and competency standards in writing from the outset, even where it is not contemplated that poor performance is to be relied on as a ground for dismissal. As seen in this case, expectations that are never articulated cannot support a dismissal.
• Conduct formal mid-probation reviews and document performance feedback on an ongoing basis – not just at the end of probation – and consider extending probation, with clear improvement targets where performance is borderline.
• Build a structured, documented probation framework, with clear standards, regular reviews, and an escalation path. This framework should be communicated at the outset.

Look out for Part 3 of this series, which examines an employee’s personal financial liability for breaches of contractual duties, including failure to perform assigned tasks and fabrication of documents.

Client Alert 2026-172