Woman wrongfully dismissed because of her pregnancy and maternity leave awarded S$19,800

SINGAPORE: A woman who was wrongfully dismissed because of her pregnancy and upcoming maternity leave was awarded S$19,800 (US$15,520) by an Employment Claims Tribunal (ECT) on Tuesday (Sep 22).

This sum comprises three months of the woman's gross pay on top of another three months' pay for harm caused to her.

The woman, named only as C in the judgment, had received a good performance appraisal before giving birth, but was not given any increment and was later told she did not fit into the new boss' vision of the team.

Parties are usually not named in ECT judgments as the hearings are conducted in private.

The new boss, named as Mr EC, kept trying to call her although she was on hospitalisation leave for pregnancy complications and eventually told her over a call that her employment would be terminated when her maternity leave ended.

Tribunal magistrate Lee Li Choon said this case sheds light on the kind of adverse workplace culture that working women who choose to have children may encounter from certain employers.

THE CASE

The woman had brought a claim for compensation for her dismissal, saying it was without just cause or excuse because it was discriminatory.

She began working as an executive for the unnamed company on Apr 21, 2021. 

In March 2023, C's business unit came under a new director, Mr EC, who had recently joined the company.

According to a timeline of events set out in the judgment, C had a one-on-one lunch with Mr EC in April 2023, during which she told him she was pregnant and due in October that year.

She said she was considering whether to take a few months of sabbatical leave, as provided for in the company's human resources handbook, in order to care for her newborn.

In July 2023, C had her performance appraisal meeting with Mr EC, as well as the previous director of her business unit, and Ms JY, a new director of her business unit.

Ms JY described C's performance for the period from July 2022 to June 2023 as "excellent", with a "healthy growth mindset". She also said C had "an impressive ability to take on multi-disciplinary projects that are outside of her niche".

Mr EC concurred with this appraisal and said C's performance was good.

In September 2023, C submitted her maternity leave form with the date fields left blank. She explained, when asked by HR personnel, that her child's date of birth was not yet known, and that she was still considering whether to apply for sabbatical leave on top of maternity leave.

On Sep 13, 2023, C was hospitalised for pregnancy-related complications and high blood pressure.

At the time, she was 36 weeks' pregnant with her first child. She told the company's HR personnel that she would be on hospitalisation leave due to pregnancy-related complications.

She continued to be on hospitalisation leave until she gave birth.

On Sep 18, 2023, Ms JY told C that Mr EC was not keen to have C return to work.

On Oct 2, 2023, Mr EC sent C a message indicating that he wished to speak to her.

C asked what it was about, saying she would like to focus on her pregnancy and not think about work as much as possible.

Mr EC said it was "regarding the plans after".

He asked again about the "quick chat" a day later and C obliged. They had a phone call on Oct 4, 2023, which was recorded entirely by C's husband.

On Oct 5, 2023, C was asked to go to the office for a meeting. She declined, saying she wished to focus on her health and pregnancy.

After this call, she sent an email stating that she was on hospitalisation leave until she gave birth.

She said she did not see any need to discuss the conversation she had with Mr EC the previous day.

She stated that if Mr EC chose to terminate her when her maternity leave ended, she would like it in black and white so she could start looking for a job.

No response was given to this email.

C gave birth on Oct 11, 2023 and began her maternity leave, which was to end on Jan 25, 2024.

A day after giving birth, C re-submitted her maternity form with the date fields completed and informed HR via email that she would be commencing her maternity leave.

She resigned on Dec 21, 2023 with one month's notice. She later filed a claim saying she had been forced to resign while still on maternity leave.

THE HEARING

The magistrate said the crucial piece of evidence was the phone call C had with Mr EC on Oct 4, 2023.

According to C, she was told that she did not fit into Mr EC's new vision for his team and that her employment would be terminated immediately after her maternity leave.

She claimed that if she wished to return to work at the company after her maternity leave, she would have to undergo an interview and be re-assessed by Mr EC over her suitability.

The company's interpretation of the call was that Mr EC was merely seeking to clarify C's plans after her maternity leave.

The firm said C had earlier expressed interest in taking sabbatical leave for an unspecified duration, and the call was made to clarify this.

The company said the call was made in good faith to understand C's intentions, and that Mr EC had merely suggested that "it would be cleaner to terminate the employment after the maternity".

The magistrate noted that C had not submitted any formal application for sabbatical or no-pay leave as of the date of the phone call.

Ms Lee found that the company had no reason to make that unsolicited phone call through Mr EC, as there was no pressing matter regarding C's sabbatical leave that required any decision on the company's part.

She also found that the call was not made in good faith.

The company did not call Mr EC as its witness. During the hearing, Ms JY testified that just before she sent C the message giving her the heads-up, Mr EC had asked her how C would react if he were to tell her that she did not fit into his vision for the team.

Ms JY said she got the impression from Mr EC that C would be told to go upon returning from maternity leave.

Ms Lee found that Mr EC had already formed the intention to terminate C's employment immediately after her maternity leave when Mr EC spoke to Ms JY in September 2023.

Even if Mr EC had mistakenly thought that C intended to take an extended period of sabbatical leave, he had already become aware before the phone call that C intended to return to work immediately after her maternity leave.

This is because C said over the phone on Oct 4, 2023 that if all goes well and the child was healthy, she would make arrangements in order to come back to the office.

WHAT MR EC SAID

Pointing to excerpts from the phone call, Ms Lee said it was "abundantly clear" that C was essentially being told that her employment would be terminated at the end of her maternity leave.

The only concession was that the company was "allowing her" to enjoy her paid maternity leave.

For example, Mr EC said: "So I think the long story short is that I have not had a chance to see during our time working together the value that you can bring to the new vision of the team that I'm envisioning."

He also said: "My preference which I would like to discuss with you, is that I feel it would be cleaner to terminate after the maternity, right, rather than leave things up in the air, and so that you can also be fully focused on your family time, like, you know, not having to worry about that rearrangement at that point.”

Mr EC added: "But if you do wish to come back at that time, I would say it would be based on new expectations that I would align with you on. And of course, the prerequisite that the team has the available spot and need at that time. 

"But basically, I would still put you, if you are really keen to do so, and like, for example, based on even your personal situation that you really need to help to get back to work, you know, in that case, I will take all these factors into consideration and also basically be objective in giving you a fair chance to come back. And even if not, you know, I would maybe on a personal level try to see what I can do to help, you know, help you get more opportunities."

Ms Lee said the evidence showed that C's performance had been assessed as good before she went on hospitalisation leave.

This stood in direct contrast to Mr EC's assertion that she did not fit into his vision for the team.

Ms Lee said it was clear that the real reason for the intended dismissal was C's impending "hiatus" or absence from work due to a combination of her hospitalisation leave and maternity leave.

Both periods of leave were her employment rights and entitlements, and dismissing her for exercising these rights constitutes a dismissal on wrongful ground, said Ms Lee.

"Such a reason also amounted to discrimination against C on account of her pregnancy and maternity leave," she added.

During the hearing, it was revealed that C had been largely working from home during her pregnancy.

After her forced resignation, C sought employment offering similar flexibility given her needs as a new mother, but was unable to find such opportunities within the small industry.

The magistrate also noted that C had not been given any salary increment when one was due in July 2023, unlike other employees in the company, despite her good performance grading.

She awarded the maximum three months of her gross rate of pay amounting to S$9,900. On top of this, she added another three months' pay for the harm caused to the woman as well as the aggravating factors.

Ms Lee said the woman was informed of her impending termination in a manner that was "both degrading and deeply insensitive".

She was effectively given a message that she was "not worthy of continued employment simply because she was giving birth and going on maternity leave", said Ms Lee.

"This would have caused her tremendous anxiety about her financial situation and job security during an exceptionally vulnerable period in her life," she added.