Fired During Probation? This Singapore Tribunal Ruling Could Change What Employers Can — and Cannot — Do

A probation period may be designed to test whether a new hire is the right fit — but a recent Singapore employment case shows that it does not automatically give employers a free pass to terminate someone without properly supporting the reason for dismissal.

The Singapore Employment Claims Tribunals ordered an employer to pay S$30,000 in compensation after finding that it had failed to establish sufficient grounds for dismissing a woman near the end of her six-month probation on the basis of poor performance.

The case that is putting employers on notice

The employee, identified in the judgment as the claimant in JIW v JIX [2026] SGECT 7, joined the company on April 21, 2025, as a regional internal control audit manager on a six-month probation period.

Her monthly salary was S$11,500.

On Oct. 16, 2025 — shortly before her probation was due to end — she was told that her performance had not met the standards required for confirmation. She was given two weeks' written notice, with her employment ending on Oct. 31.

The employee challenged the dismissal, arguing that the company had not adequately communicated the performance standards against which she was being assessed. She also said she had not received prior warnings, a meaningful probation review or a proper opportunity to address the concerns raised about her performance.

The tribunal ultimately agreed that the employer's case was not sufficiently established.

Why the employer's performance assessment failed

The tribunal found problems with several key aspects of the employer's assessment.

Among them, the employer failed to adequately demonstrate that:

• the performance expectations and standards had been clearly communicated;
• the scores and ratings assigned to the employee were justified;
• her performance shortcomings had been assessed in a principled and reliable manner; and
• termination was a justified and proportionate response in the circumstances.

The result was significant: the tribunal found there was no sufficient “just cause or excuse” for the dismissal and ordered S$30,000 in compensation, which was the applicable maximum in the circumstances of the case.

Probation is not a legal loophole

The ruling is particularly important because it challenges a common workplace assumption: that an employee on probation can simply be dismissed because the employer decides the person is “not a good fit.”

Singapore's Ministry of Manpower states that employees should check their employment contracts for the notice period applicable during probation. If the contract does not provide a different probationary notice period, the notice period during probation is generally the same as after confirmation.

More importantly, Singapore's Employment Act allows a relevant employee to challenge a dismissal where it was made without just cause or excuse.

The recent tribunal decision therefore highlights a distinction employers cannot simply ignore: giving contractual notice does not necessarily end the legal inquiry.

What employers need to understand

Singapore's employment-law landscape has been receiving increased judicial scrutiny in 2026.

In JGP v JGQ [2026] SGECT 1, the Employment Claims Tribunal examined the difference between contractual termination and a statutory wrongful-dismissal claim. The tribunal stressed that complying with a contractual notice requirement and establishing a legally sufficient basis for a statutory claim are separate questions.

That distinction matters.

An employer may comply with a contractual notice clause, yet an employee may still have grounds to pursue a statutory wrongful-dismissal claim depending on the circumstances and the reason relied upon for the termination.

One-month notice is not automatically required for everyone

Another point worth clarifying is the widespread belief that Singapore law universally requires one month's notice.

It does not.

Where the employment contract specifies a notice period, that contractual provision generally governs. If there is no contractual notice provision, the Employment Act provides statutory minimums based on length of service: one day's notice for service of less than 26 weeks, one week's notice for 26 weeks to less than two years, two weeks for two to less than five years, and four weeks for five years or more.

For employees on probation, MOM specifically advises checking the employment contract because the probationary notice period may be different if the contract says so.

Why this ruling matters beyond one employee

The case sends a broader message to HR departments and managers: performance management needs evidence, clarity and consistency.

Employers considering termination for poor performance should be able to show what standards were expected, how those standards were communicated, how performance was measured and why dismissal was an appropriate response.

That becomes especially important when an employee is dismissed shortly before the end of probation and has not previously been told that their performance is considered inadequate.

A recent analysis by global law firm Norton Rose Fulbright similarly described the decision as a warning that employers must be prepared to rigorously defend poor-performance dismissals, including those involving probationers.

What employees should know

Workers who believe they have been wrongfully dismissed can seek assistance through Singapore's Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM).

The Ministry of Manpower says a wrongful-dismissal claim should generally be filed with TADM within one month from the employee's last day of employment. Depending on the circumstances, unresolved claims may proceed to the Employment Claims Tribunals.

The rules can be particularly important for managers and executives, who face additional eligibility requirements for certain wrongful-dismissal claims.

The bigger workplace lesson

The Singapore tribunal's decision does not mean companies can never terminate employees during probation.

Rather, it demonstrates that probation does not automatically shield an employer from scrutiny when the stated reason for termination is poor performance.

For employees, the message is equally important: being on probation does not necessarily mean you have no employment protections.

For employers, the lesson is straightforward — if poor performance is the reason for termination, document the expectations, communicate the concerns and make sure the assessment can withstand scrutiny.