Woman who resigned after being put on performance improvement plan loses wrongful dismissal claim

SINGAPORE: A woman who joined a company as a senior social media executive was placed on a performance improvement plan (PIP) after her role was expanded to include "creative" functions.

When she did not pass the PIP, she was offered a chance to be redeployed or resign, and she chose to resign.

The woman later filed a wrongful dismissal claim, initially seeking S$20,000 (US$15,660) but later recalibrating it to S$4,000, or one month of her salary.

She argued that her dismissal was the result of performance issues around her creative functions which she had "never been contractually appointed to".

In a judgment published on Tuesday (Sep 29), an Employment Claims Tribunal (ECT) dismissed the woman's claim, saying she had been dismissed with just cause or excuse.

THE CASE

The woman's name and the name of the company were anonymised in the judgment. This is usual for ECT cases which are heard in private.

The woman began her job at the company on Jan 8, 2024. She passed her two-month probation period.

From March 2024, her role was expanded to include "creative" functions.

The company explained that this was part of a company-wide consolidation process.

The woman consented to the expansion of her role, but said she agreed based on the company's representation that she would receive adequate training and mentorship.

In November 2025, the woman was placed on a PIP for about three months. The plan identified four areas of improvement: Creative ideation and video production, production and execution, photography and styling, and content planning.

The first three areas were related to her creative functions while the fourth was a non-creative function, the judgment stated.

When the PIP concluded in March this year, it was assessed that the woman did not pass the PIP.

The head of human resources (HR) conveyed to the woman the possibility of being considered for redeployment to other positions.

The woman was also offered the option of resigning. It was understood that she would be terminated if she accepted neither redeployment nor resignation, the judgment said.

The woman resigned at the end of March 2026. The company agreed to waive and shorten her notice period so she could begin her next job.

In June 2026, the woman filed a claim for wrongful dismissal, saying she had been dismissed due to alleged performance issues related to creative functions that she had "never been contractually appointed to".

She also claimed that she had not been provided with the "promised support".

TRIBUNAL FINDINGS

Tribunal magistrate Kevin Ho Hin Tat found that the woman did not resign voluntarily, but was forced to do so.

However, he was unable to find that she was dismissed without just cause or excuse.

Mr Ho said the woman's argument – that she had never been "contractually appointed" to her creative functions – was a non-starter.

While there was no revised employment contract reflecting the new functions beyond the woman's original job scope, she did not dispute that she had agreed to take on those functions.

She had also been performing those functions for a substantial period of time since March 2024.

In the woman's performance review for June 2024, it was expressly documented that she was doing something "beyond what she was hired for, which is creative work".

On the claim that she was not provided the promised support for the creative functions, Mr Ho said it was not supported by any objective evidence or set out in enough detail.

While the woman was self-represented, she still had the duty to particularise her case with sufficient detail, said Mr Ho.

The woman's appraisal reports also did not reflect any "serious complaint" from her about the "promised support", he said.

An appraisal report in December 2025 alluded to the woman requesting "samples/proper guidance from a supervisor for stuff like mood boards", and for proper "feedback from supervisor on what I can improve on especially since I do not come from a graphic design background".

The PIP document sets out in detail for each area of improvement the resources or support that would be provided to the woman.

It was also undisputed that the woman did not reach out to the HR officer handling her PIP for any support or to raise any challenge regarding the PIP.

COMPANY HAD DOCUMENTATION

Mr Ho said the PIP was a structured and documented process, with a fixed period given for the woman to meet the clearly defined performance targets.

"I am satisfied that the respondent has produced sufficient contemporaneous and objective evidence to show that it had genuine concerns about the claimant's work performance, which led to the PIP and its eventual decisions to offer the claimant the three options leading to her dismissal," said Mr Ho.

Apart from the PIP document, the December 2025 appraisal report records the assessment that the woman's overall rating was "partially meeting expectations".

This was the second-lowest category out of five. Her numerical rating was 2.7 out of 5.

The remarks stated that while the woman was dependable overall and had delivered results, they flagged "some recurring quality issues".

The woman was also noted to have "key areas to develop including taking full ownership of her work, improving attention to detail, and strengthening her professional knowledge and creative thinking that are essential to her role".

Mr Ho said that even if the woman could prove that she was wrongfully dismissed, she would have "considerable difficulty" in proving her entitlement to any compensation.

She had been paid for the notice period and there was effectively no break in her employment after she left the company.

"When this was pointed out to the claimant at the trial, the claimant was unable to provide any response. There is also no objective evidence of any harm that the claimant suffered on account of her dismissal," said Mr Ho.