Constructive Dismissal in Singapore: The Law, the Uncertainties, and What You Should Know

Table of Contents

1. What Is Constructive Dismissal?
2. Common examples of Improper Conduct Leading to Constructive Dismissal
3. The Current Framework for Constructive Dismissal in Singapore
4. Evidence Required to Prove Constructive Dismissal
5. How to File for Constructive Dismissal with TADM and ECT
6. Practical Guidance for Employers
7. Practical Guidance for Employees Before Filing Constructive Dismissal Claims
8. Possible Outcomes Of Constructive Dismissal Claims
9. A Developing Area of Singapore Employment Law

Constructive dismissal, or “constructive termination”, remains one of the most frequently misunderstood concepts in Singapore employment law. Before the revised Employment Act 1968 (“EA”) came into effect, constructive dismissal in Singapore was grounded primarily in common law. As a result, employees who resigned due to the employer’s conduct often attempt to frame their claims under breach of contract, the implied term of mutual trust and confidence, or repudiatory breach.

With the 2019 amendments to the EA, a statutory definition of “dismissal” was introduced, which expressly includes certain involuntary resignations, thereby giving constructive dismissal a clearer statutory foothold.

Yet, despite the number of disputes that arise in practice, the law in Singapore is not settled. This was emphatically reiterated by the Appellate Division of the High Court in Dong Wei v Shell Eastern Trading (Pte) Ltd and another [2022] SGHC(A) 8 (“Dong Wei”), a significant authority that both clarifies and complicates this area of law.

This article examines the current state of the law on constructive dismissal in Singapore – what constitutes constructive dismissal, where the law stands, where uncertainty remains, and what employers and employees should know when navigating a serious breakdown in the employment relationship.

1. What Is Constructive Dismissal?

The EA does not expressly define what constructive dismissal is. Instead, it defines “dismiss” in a way that expressly captures certain forced resignations.

1.1 The Statutory Definition of “dismiss”

Section 2(1) of the EA defines “dismiss” to mean the termination of the contract of service by the employer, with or without notice and for cause or otherwise, and includes “the resignation of an employee if the employee can show, on a balance of probabilities, that the employee did not resign voluntarily, but was forced to do so because of any conduct or omission, or course of conduct or omission, engaged in the by the employer.”

This definition is mirrored in the Ministry of Manpower’s (“MOM”) guidance on wrongful dismissal, which similarly states that dismissal includes situations where an employee resigns involuntarily.

According to the Court of Appeal in Wee Kim San Lawrence Bernard v Robinson & Co (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2014] SGCA 43, “Constructive Dismissal” refers to the situation where the employer’s repudiatory breach entitles the employee to treat themselves as discharged from the employment contract; although it is the employee themselves who terminates the contract, they are considered as having been “constructively” dismissed by the employer. It is as though the employer had effectively terminated the contract by manifesting an intention no longer to be bound by the contract, which position is then accepted by the employee.

In short, if an employee can prove that they resigned because the employer’s conduct left them with no real choice, the law treats this as a dismissal. 

1.2 Contractual / Common Law Concept

Constructive dismissal typically occurs where:

1. the employer has committed a repudiatory breach of the employment contract (whether of an express term or implied term), and
2. The employee resigns in response to that breach, thereby treating the contract as terminated.

Although it is the employee who gives notice, the law treats the situation as if the employer had effectively terminated the contract. Constructive dismissal claims in Singapore often refer to the implied term of mutual trust and confidence, which has been extensively developed in the UK but, as discussed below, is not definitively settled as part of Singapore law.

2. Common Examples of Improper Conduct Leading to Constructive Dismissal 

Not every unfair, unpleasant or heavy-handed act by an employer will amount to constructive dismissal. However, certain types of conduct may amount to constructive dismissal by employers. Below are some non-exhaustive examples:

2.1 Unilateral and Fundamental Changes to Job Scope

Constructive dismissal may arise where the employer unilaterally and substantially alters core terms of the employment contract without the employee’s consent, such as:

1. Demotion without justification
2. Stripping key responsibilities
3. Material change in reporting structure
4. Transfer to an unsuitable role

Once a case has been filed, the Courts, Employment Claims Tribunals (“ECT”) and Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (“TADM”) will look at whether these changes strike at the root of the employment bargain and would cause a reasonable employee to feel that their job has been fundamentally changed.

2.2 Non-Payment or Chronic Delay of Salary or Benefits 

Failure to pay salary is both (1) a breach of the EA (Part III – Payment of Salary), and (2) a repudiatory breach of the employment contract.

2.3 Harassment, Bullying, and Bad-Faith Disciplinary Processes

A pattern of harassing, humiliating or bad-faith conduct may cumulatively amount to constructive dismissal, especially if the employee’s complaints are ignored. Typical situations include:

1. Targeted disciplinary measures clearly out of proportion to any alleged misconduct
2. Unfair or biased investigations, where decision-makers appear pre-judged, exculpatory witnesses are ignored, or the employee is denied a fair opportunity to respond.
3. Harassment or discrimination on grounds such as gender, race, religion or disability, particularly where management fails to intervene despite repeated complaints.

2.4 Hostile or Unsafe Work Environment

Employers owe employees a basic duty to provide a safe and non-hostile work environment. Constructive dismissal may arise where, for example:

1. An employee is repeatedly exposed to physical danger despite raising concerns.
2. Colleagues routinely ostracise or intimidate the employee after they report wrongdoing, and management takes no meaningful steps to intervene.
3. Management tacitly allows a “toxic” culture of insults, shouting, or unreasonable expectations to persist.

2.5 Failure to Address Legitimate Grievances

Where an employee repeatedly raises serious grievances – such as non-payment of salary, workplace harassment, or unsafe practices – and the employer consistently ignores or dismisses these without investigation, a court or tribunal may view the employer as having repudiated the implied obligation to treat the employee fairly and reasonably.

2.6 Unjustified Salary or Benefit Reductions

Unilateral, substantial reductions in salary or benefits – particularly if targeted at a single employee – are classic examples of conduct that may drive a constructive dismissal claim. While companies may restructure or implement across-the-board pay cuts for genuine business reasons, doing so selectively or without consultation can be risky.

3. The Current Framework for Constructive Dismissal in Singapore

3.1 Employment Act, Tripartite Guidelines and Wrongful Dismissal

Under the revised EA, and the Tripartite Guidelines on Wrongful Dismissal, “dismissal” includes involuntary resignation, i.e. constructive dismissal

An employee who believes they have been dismissed without just cause or excuse (including via constructive dismissal) may file a wrongful dismissal claim under s 14 EA through the ECT after mediation at TADM.

3.2 Proving Constructive Dismissal – the Common Law Test

Typically, a claimant must establish that:

• The employer committed a fundamental or repudiatory breach of the employment contract;
  • Express contractual terms
  • Implied terms
• The employee resigned in response to that breach; and
• The employee did not affirm the contract before resigning (i.e. the employee did not continue to work for an extended period without protest, or otherwise act in a way that suggests acceptance of the employer’s conduct).

3.3 The Implied Term of Mutual Trust and Confidence – Still Unsettled.

In the United Kingdom, breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence is the classic route to establishing constructive dismissal. In Singapore, however, the position is more complex.

In Dong Wei, the Appellate Division carefully reviewed the authorities and concluded that the status of this implied term has not been clearly settled in Singapore, and that it remains an open question for the Court of Appeal to resolve in an appropriate case. The Court in Dong Wei at paragraph [82] of the judgement, held:

“…the status of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence has not been clearly settled in Singapore. It remains an open question for the Court of Appeal to resolve in a more appropriate case.”

This is extremely significant. Several High Court decisions have proceeded on the basis that such a term exists, but Dong Wei emphasises that the Court of Appeal has not definitively endorsed it. Until that happens, constructive dismissal claims in Singapore should not assume that a broad, free-standing mutual trust and confidence term will automatically be applied.

4. Evidence Required to Prove Constructive Dismissal

Because constructive dismissal turns on what actually happened and whether a reasonable person would view the employer’s conduct as repudiatory, evidence is critical when considering how to prove a constructive dismissal case. MOM and TADM emphasise that employees must substantiate wrongful dismissal claims with documents and personal accounts.

4.1 Documentary Evidence

Useful documents include but are not limited to:

• Emails and written instructions showing unilateral changes to duties, salary, or reporting lines; harsh or discriminatory comments; or threats of dismissal.
•  Internal memos or minutes from meetings documenting decisions affecting the employee.
• Performance appraisals – particularly where there is a sudden, unexplained downgrade inconsistent with earlier appraisals.
• HR and investigation records – disciplinary letters, investigation reports, suspension notices.

Where possible, employees should retain contemporaneous records rather than relying purely on recollection.

4.2 Timeline of Events

A clear chronological narrative helps adjudicators see how the situation escalated. This should cover:

1. Dates of key incidents (e.g. demotion, salary cut, disciplinary meetings).
2. Dates and content of grievances or complaints raised.
3. Employer’s responses (or non-responses).
4. The point at which the employee felt compelled to resign.

MOM and TADM typically review such timelines when assessing whether an employee truly had no reasonable option but to resign.

4.3 Internal Grievances and Attempts at Resolution

Evidence that the employee raised concerns internally before resigning is often important:

1. Emails to HR or management raising harassment, salary issues, or unfair treatment.
2. Formal grievance forms, where the organisation has a policy.
3. Notes of meetings with HR, including what was said and any assurances given.

This shows that the employer had an opportunity to address the issues but failed to do so.

4.4 Resignation Letters and Exit Interviews

Resignation letters (and any exit interview notes) should, where appropriate:

1. Clearly state that the resignation is due to the employer’s conduct, and
2. Briefly identify the main issues (e.g. non-payment of salary, harassment, forced demotion).

Vague resignation letters (such as “I resign for personal reasons”) may make it harder later to argue that the employee resigned under protest.

5. How to File for Constructive Dismissal with TADM and ECT

Filing constructive dismissal claims under the EA follow the same pathway as other wrongful dismissal claims:

1. Mandatory mediation at TADM; and
2. If unresolved, adjudication by the ECT.

5.1 Step 1 – Filing a Claim with TADM

Employees who believe they have been wrongfully dismissed, including via constructive dismissal, must file a claim with TADM within the prescribed time limits, generally within 1 month of their last day of employment for most wrongful dismissal cases.

Key points:

1. Claims are filed through TADM’s e-services portal, and employees are expected to provide supporting documents and a summary of events.
2. TADM will assess whether the claim falls within its jurisdiction and the Tripartite Guidelines, and then schedule mediation sessions, which can be virtual or in person.
3. Mediation is confidential and aims at a practical settlement, such as compensation or an agreed departure package.

If the parties reach agreement, the settlement may be recorded under the Employment Claims Act 2016, and becomes enforceable as if it were an ECT order.

5.2 Step 2 – Escalating to the ECT

If mediation fails, TADM will issue a Claim Referral Certificate, permitting the employee to file a claim at the ECT via the Courts’ Community Justice & Tribunals System.

At this stage:

1. A Tribunal Magistrate hears evidence from both sides in a relatively informal but legally structured setting.
2. The ECT assesses whether there was a dismissal, and if so, whether it was without just cause or excuse, applying the EA and Tripartite Guidelines.

The ECT can order, among other things:

• Reinstatement (in practice rare, and usually only appropriate where the relationship has not irretrievably broken down); or
• Compensation, subject to monetary caps set under the Employment Claims Act (the ECT is designed as a speedy, low-cost forum, not a venue for large common-law damages).

If your claim is unsuccessful at the ECT, you may consider engaging an employment lawyer to pursue and file a civil claim in the Courts.

6. Practical Guidance for Employers

From an employer’s perspective, constructive dismissal risk is best managed well before any dispute arises.

6.1 Plan and Document Decisions

Employers should:

1. Keep clear written records of performance concerns, restructuring reasons, and any discussions with the employee.
2. Ensure that changes to duties, salary or reporting lines are business-justified, fair, and communicated transparently.

This documentation will be critical if the employer later needs to demonstrate that its conduct was reasonable.

6.2 Use Fair and Transparent Processes

Investigations and disciplinary processes should:

1. Be carried out by individuals who are impartial;
2. Give the employee a meaningful opportunity to respond; and
3. Comply with both the company’s policies and the Tripartite Guidelines.

6.3 Communicate and Honour Commitments

If employers commit to providing investigation outcomes or follow-up feedback, they should honour those promises.

6.4 Exercise Termination Rights Responsibly

Even where contracts allow termination on notice without giving reasons, employers should:

1. Avoid using termination rights to retaliate against employees who raise legitimate concerns;
2. Be careful when terminating shortly after grievances, whistle-blowing, or protected events (e.g. pregnancy)

6.5 Train Managers and HR

Front-line managers often make the day-to-day decisions that later give rise to disputes. Regular training on (1) performance management, (2) anti-harassment policies, and (3) correct handling of grievances can significantly reduce the risk of constructive dismissal.

7. Practical Guidance for Employees Before Filing Constructive Dismissal Claims

Employees alleging constructive dismissal should be prepared to demonstrate:

1. A clear repudiatory breach, not mere dissatisfaction
2. Causation: that they resigned because of the breach
3. Timeliness: they did not affirm the contract
4. Evidence: emails, messages, instructions, HR documents

7.1 Do Not Resign Immediately

Resigning too quickly may:

1. Undermine the argument that the breach was truly intolerable; and
2. Make it harder to negotiate or gather evidence.

7.2 Record and Escalate Issues Internally

Employees should:

Keep written records of problematic incidents.

Raise concerns with HR or management through emails or written notes, not just verbal conversations.

7.3 Seek Advice Early

(a) An experienced labour lawyer in Singapore can give you precise advice on gathering evidence and the process for filing a constructive dismissal claim.

7.4 Draft Resignation Letters Carefully 

Where resignation is unavoidable, letters should:

1. Clearly state that the employee is resigning because of specific acts or omissions of the employer; and
2. Avoid unnecessary inflammatory language that may hinder settlement.

8. Possible Outcomes Of Constructive Dismissal Claims

When an employee pursues a constructive dismissal claim and the ECT ultimately finds that the resignation amounted to a dismissal without just cause or excuse, several remedies may be available depending on the circumstances of the case.

a. Reinstatement

In exceptional situations, the ECT may direct that the employee be restored to their previous role. Reinstatement is rarely ordered in practice, as it generally requires both the employer and employee to agree that returning to the workplace is realistic and in their mutual interest. It tends to arise more often in unionised settings where collective agreements contemplate reinstatement as a remedy.

b. Compensation

The more common remedy is a monetary award. The amount typically reflects income that the employee would have earned had the wrongful dismissal not occurred. The ECT, however, is a statutory tribunal with jurisdictional limits, and does not generally award broad, common-law damages or speculative sums.

c. Settlement at TADM

Many disputes resolve earlier during mediation at the TADM. A mediated settlement may include compensation, mutually agreed separation terms, or other negotiated outcomes that allow both parties to avoid a contested hearing before the ECT.

d. Dismissal of the Claim

If the Tribunal concludes that the employer’s conduct did not meet the threshold for constructive dismissal, the claim will be dismissed and no remedy will be granted. This underscores the importance of clear evidence and proper legal framing.

Ultimately, the outcome of any constructive dismissal dispute will depend on the specific facts, the credibility of the evidence, and the strength of the legal arguments presented. Given the technical and evidential complexities involved, both employers and employees would be well-advised to seek appropriate legal guidance when navigating such claims.

9. A Developing Area of Singapore Employment Law

Constructive dismissal in Singapore remains an evolving doctrine. The Appellate Division’s judgment in Dong Wei underscores that the implied term of mutual trust and confidence remains unconfirmed, and that the courts are cautious about imposing broad good-faith obligations on employers.

What is clear, however, is that courts expect employers to act with fairness, reasonableness, and respect, even where the law does not strictly require it. As the Court noted, employment is a “two-way relationship”, and employers will be judged not only by what the law demands, but also by what dignity and decency require. The Courts will not hesitate to find wrongful dismissal where employers abuse their position. For employees, constructive dismissal remains a high-threshold claim that demands clear evidence.

If you are navigating the complexities of potential constructive dismissal, whether as an employer seeking to manage risk, or an employee considering your options, it is prudent to seek tailored legal advice. At Farallon Law Corporation, we specialise in employment laws and contracts. Our legal firm can help you evaluate the strength of your position, strategise your next steps, and navigate the procedural requirements with clarity and confidence.

Whether you’re an employer or employee wondering what to do next, seek legal advice from Farallon Law to ensure your rights are protected.