Singapore tribunal upholds summary dismissal of managing director for covertly recording internal meeting

This client alert examines a recent decision of the Employment Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal) of practical relevance to employers and in-house human resources (HR) and legal teams, focusing on whether an employee’s covert recording of a workplace meeting can justify dismissal without notice, and what amounts to “due inquiry” before such a dismissal.

Background

In JJT v. JJU [2026] SGECT 19 ([2026] SGECT 19), the Tribunal considered a wrongful dismissal claim by the respondent’s former Managing Director, employed under a contract dated 21 May 2024. The respondent is a public relations business.

On 23 February 2026, the claimant was served with a notice of termination without cause, and she elected to serve her three-month notice period (ending 22 May 2026) in the office. The termination letter also required her to immediately delete or destroy any confidential company information on her personal devices.

On 26 February 2026, the claimant was issued a warning email and letter concerning her conduct during the notice period, stating that any “further misconduct” would result in immediate termination without notice or salary in lieu. This related to the claimant’s alleged conduct in her dealings with the respondent’s clients.

On 3 March 2026, the claimant presented her response to the warning at a regularly scheduled weekly management meeting, reading from notes on her phone, which she was also using to record the meeting. The respondent’s President, who attended the meeting, noticed the recording and asked the claimant to delete it. She agreed and also left her phone outside the room.

A show cause letter was issued on 4 March 2026 requiring a written explanation by noon the next day. The claimant responded on 5 March 2026, and on 6 March 2026 the respondent terminated her employment with immediate effect for misconduct, on the basis that recording an internal meeting without consent was a fundamental breach of trust and confidence.

The claimant brought a claim for wrongful dismissal, arguing that:

• the recording was made openly and only to help her prepare her written response;
• no confidential information was discussed during the meeting; 
• the outcome of the inquiry had been predetermined; and
• the recording was a pretext for dismissing her with cause, so as to deprive her of her notice-period salary and related benefits.

Outcome: The claim was dismissed. The Tribunal found that the dismissal was with just cause or excuse, so the question of compensation did not arise. Parties were to bear their own costs and disbursements

The Tribunal’s key findings

1. Burden of proof and the threshold for summary dismissal

Under section 14(1) of the Employment Act 1968, an employer may dismiss without notice for misconduct inconsistent with the conditions of service, after due inquiry. Under section 27(2)(a) of the Employment Claims Act 2016, the employer bears the burden of proving just cause. The Tribunal emphasised that misconduct exists on a spectrum, and applying Aldabe Fermin v. Standard Chartered Bank [2010] 3 SLR 722, held that it must be so serious that it strikes at the root of the employment contract and destroys the confidence underlying it, judged by reference to the particular employment relationship.

2. Covert recording can justify summary dismissal

Adopting the factors in Phoenix House, the Tribunal found:

• What was recorded: The meeting was a regular business meeting at which confidential matters, including ongoing handover issues, would likely have been discussed. It was irrelevant that only the warning had been discussed before the recording was noticed.
• Purpose: No conclusive finding could be made, as the recording had been deleted and no transcript existed. The Tribunal also questioned why a recording was needed when the claimant was reading from prepared notes.
• Blameworthiness: This was at the lower end. The claimant had never been told not to record meetings, neither her contract nor any policy expressly prohibited recording, she did not deny or conceal the recording once discovered, and she was in an emotional state.
• Employer’s attitude: The respondent placed a premium on confidentiality, as reflected in the contractual confidentiality clause (which covered verbal communications and minutes of meetings) and the instruction to delete confidential information during the notice period.

Weighing these factors, the Tribunal held that, given the claimant’s seniority as Managing Director and the respondent’s business as a public relations firm entrusted with client confidences, the very act of covert recording was sufficient to destroy trust and confidence, regardless of whether her intentions were malicious.

The Tribunal cautioned, however, that employers will not always be justified in treating covert recording as warranting summary dismissal, and each case turns on its facts.

3. Due inquiry was conducted

The Tribunal found that due inquiry had been conducted:

• The claimant was clearly notified of the allegation and given an opportunity to respond;
• A response window of just under one day was not too short;
• The fact that HR concluded its review about five hours after receiving her response was not determinative;
• The evidence showed that the response was properly considered by the company and a reasoned assessment was made. Internal emails showed two levels of review (HR, followed by the President). 

The Tribunal also found no concrete evidence that the recording was a pretext to avoid paying her notice-period salary.

Comments and conclusion

This decision provides welcome guidance on a question that is increasingly common in the age of smartphones and AI recording devices. It confirms that covert recording can justify summary dismissal even where the employee is not shown to have acted maliciously. However, the inquiry is fact-sensitive, and the outcome here was driven heavily by the claimant’s seniority, the confidential nature of the meeting, and the employer’s demonstrable emphasis on confidentiality.

Importantly, the decision also provides clarity on what amounts to “due inquiry” in the context of termination on grounds of misconduct.

In practical terms, employers should:

• Consider expressly prohibiting the unauthorised recording of meetings in employment contracts, handbooks, or disciplinary policies. The Tribunal noted the absence of any such express prohibition here, which lowered the employee’s blameworthiness.
• Reinforce confidentiality expectations in writing, particularly when an employee is serving notice, as the respondent did in its initial termination letter.
• Conduct a proper due inquiry before summary dismissal: put the specific allegation to the employee in writing, give a reasonable opportunity to respond, and document how the response was considered, ideally with more than one level of review.
• Draft dismissal letters carefully, acknowledging the employee’s explanations and explaining why they do not mitigate the misconduct, to avoid any suggestion that the outcome was predetermined.
• Assess each case on its own facts. Covert recording will not automatically justify summary dismissal, and a less senior employee, a less sensitive meeting, or a clearly benign purpose may lead to a different outcome.

Client Alert 2026-201