He ran redundancies for his employer, then it made him redundant and he sued
An HR lead who cast his redundancy as payback lost every claim, Tribunal Magistrate Jared Kang Chern Wey ruled on 1 July 2026.
The dispute reached Singapore's Employment Claims Tribunals after the employee brought two linked claims against the company that had let him go. He had joined as HR lead in late 2022 and was made redundant just over two years later, in a process he himself would ordinarily have run.
His central claim was that the redundancy was retaliation. Between 1 and 5 August 2024, he had escalated management's proposed mid-year pay and share-option adjustments to the group's rewards team, which advised deferring them. He said that escalation was a protected disclosure, and that within two months he was told his role was "at risk of redundancy" and then given notice.
The tribunal rejected that reading. On the record, the August emails showed the employee doing his job as the conduit between management and the rewards team, not blowing the whistle on wrongdoing. The chronology also did not fit: the company's redundancy business case was dated 23 September, and the "at risk" letter was issued on 9 October, both before the employee filed his formal Speak Up report on 10 October. The tribunal was not persuaded that any retaliatory motive operated on the decision.
The employee also argued the redundancy was a sham because HR work continued after he left. The tribunal disagreed, accepting...
The fake claim that groups of Muslims are responsible for setting fire to five churches in France over the course of a single day has been circulating online. The acts supposedly took place on Oct...