Singapore tribunal dismisses wrongful dismissal claim after employee resigns following PIP

A Singapore Employment Claims Tribunal has dismissed a wrongful dismissal claim brought by a woman who resigned after failing a performance improvement plan (PIP), finding that the employer had sufficient evidence of genuine performance concerns and had followed a structured process.

The case offers a reminder for employers that clear performance expectations, documented feedback and evidence of support can be important when managing underperformance, particularly when an employee's responsibilities have evolved over time.

The woman joined the unnamed company as a senior social media executive in January 2024 and passed her two-month probation. From March that year, her responsibilities were expanded to include creative functions as part of a company-wide consolidation process.

Although there was no revised employment contract documenting the additional responsibilities, the tribunal found that the woman had agreed to take them on and had performed the functions for a substantial period.

In November 2025, the woman was placed on a three-month PIP covering four areas: creative ideation and video production, production and execution, photography and styling, and content planning.

The first three areas related to the creative responsibilities, while content planning was a non-creative function.

At the end of the PIP in March 2026, the company assessed that she had not met the required standards. HR then offered her the possibility of redeployment or resignation. She resigned at the end of March after the company agreed to shorten and waive her notice period so she could start her next job.

She subsequently filed a wrongful dismissal claim in June, initially seeking S20,000 before reducing the amount to S4,000, equivalent to one month's salary.

Her argument was that the performance concerns related to creative functions she had not been contractually appointed to perform. She also argued that the company had not provided the training and mentorship she said had been promised when her role was expanded.

Tribunal magistrate Kevin Ho Hin Tat found that the woman had not resigned voluntarily, but was effectively forced to choose between resignation, redeployment or termination.

However, this did not mean that the dismissal was wrongful.

The tribunal found that the argument that she had never been "contractually appointed" to the creative functions was not sustainable because she had agreed to take on the responsibilities and had performed them since March 2024.

A June 2024 performance review had also expressly recorded that she was undertaking work "beyond what she was hired for, which is creative work".

The tribunal therefore considered her actual responsibilities and conduct, rather than relying solely on the absence of a revised employment contract.

The tribunal also rejected the woman's claim that she had not received adequate support. While she had referred in a December 2025 appraisal to wanting samples, guidance and feedback, particularly because she did not have a graphic design background, the tribunal found insufficient objective evidence to substantiate her broader claim that promised support had not been provided.

The PIP itself specified the resources and support that would be available for each performance area.

The tribunal also noted that the woman had not approached the HR officer managing the PIP to seek support or challenge the process.

The PIP was described as a structured and documented process with a defined timeframe and clear performance targets.

The employer's documentation also showed that concerns about performance were not raised only when the PIP began.

A December 2025 appraisal rated the woman as "partially meeting expectations", with a score of 2.7 out of five. The appraisal noted that while she was dependable and had delivered results, there were recurring quality issues.

It also identified areas for development including taking greater ownership, improving attention to detail, strengthening professional knowledge and developing creative thinking.

The tribunal found that these records, together with the PIP documentation, provided sufficient contemporaneous and objective evidence that the employer had genuine concerns about her performance.

The ruling highlights several practical considerations for employers managing employees whose roles evolve beyond their original responsibilities.

First, role changes should be documented. While the tribunal accepted that the woman had agreed to take on the additional creative functions, relying on an informal expansion of responsibilities can create room for disputes over expectations.

Second, performance concerns should be supported by evidence. In this case, the employer had appraisal records, a documented PIP, defined performance areas and evidence of the support available to the employee.

Third, employees need an opportunity to raise concerns. The tribunal noted that the woman had not approached the HR officer responsible for the PIP to seek support or challenge the process.

The case also illustrates the distinction between an employee being effectively forced to resign and that resignation amounting to wrongful dismissal. While the tribunal found that the woman did not resign voluntarily, it concluded that the employer had demonstrated "just cause or excuse" for the dismissal.

The tribunal also noted that even if wrongful dismissal had been established, the woman would have faced difficulty proving entitlement to compensation. She had been paid for her notice period and there was effectively no gap between leaving the company and starting her next job.