The Employment Act permits dismissal for misconduct only after a due inquiry. There is no prescribed procedure, which misleads employers into thinking there is no standard — there is. The inquiry must be genuinely fair, and a dismissal without one is the most common foundation for a wrongful dismissal claim at the Employment Claims Tribunal.
Due Inquiry Procedure
Investigating misconduct before dismissal or downgrading
The Employment Act permits dismissal for misconduct only after a due inquiry. There is no prescribed procedure, which misleads employers into thinking there is no standard — there is. The inquiry must be genuinely fair, and a dismissal without one is the most common foundation for a wrongful dismissal claim at the Employment Claims Tribunal.
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Employee | [NAME], [JOB TITLE], employee number [NUMBER] |
| Allegation, in summary | [ONE SENTENCE] |
| Date the allegation came to the Company’s attention | [DATE] |
| Inquiry officer | [NAME], [DESIGNATION] |
| Complainant or reporting person | [NAME] |
| Suspension pending inquiry | [Yes, from ______ / No] |
| Target completion date | [DATE] |
1. Purpose and Scope
1.1This procedure applies where the Company is considering dismissal, downgrading or suspension of an employee on the ground of misconduct.
1.2Its purpose is to establish the facts fairly before any decision is taken, and to ensure that the employee knows the allegation and has a genuine opportunity to answer it.
1.3This procedure does not apply to performance shortfalls, which are dealt with under the Company’s performance management process, or to complaints of harassment, which are dealt with under the anti-harassment policy. Where conduct falls into more than one category, the employee will be told which process applies and why.
2. Principles
2.1No employee will be dismissed, downgraded or suspended for misconduct without a due inquiry.
2.2The employee will be informed of the allegation in sufficient detail to answer it, including what is said to have happened, when, and why it is said to amount to misconduct.
2.3The employee will be given a genuine opportunity to respond, to present their account, to ask questions of the evidence relied on, and to produce evidence or name witnesses.
2.4The person conducting the inquiry will not be the complainant, a witness to the events, or a person with a personal interest in the outcome.
2.5The employee may be accompanied at any inquiry meeting by a colleague or a union representative.
2.6The inquiry will be completed as promptly as the circumstances allow.
2.7The decision will be based on the evidence gathered, and the reasons will be recorded.
2.8The employee will be informed of the outcome in writing and of any right of appeal.
7 more pages in the Word file
This is page 1 of the Word document, exactly as it appears when you open it. Fields shown like THIS are placeholders for you to complete.
These notes accompany the template and explain the drafting choices, the compliance points and the mistakes most often made with this document. They appear as a final page in the Word file, intended to be deleted before the document is executed.
The Employment Act requires a due inquiry before dismissal for misconduct but does not prescribe how it must be run. Employers frequently read that as licence to hold a short conversation and decide. The absence of a prescribed form means the test is substantive fairness: did the employee know the allegation, and did they have a real opportunity to answer it? Both must be evidenced.
Where a dismissal is challenged, the questions are almost always: was the allegation put to the employee with enough particularity to answer; was the employee heard before the decision; and was the decision-maker independent of the complaint. Get those three right and most other imperfections are survivable. Miss one and the rest of the file rarely helps.
Appointing the complainant, the person who investigated, or the person who has already decided the outcome undermines the whole exercise. In a small company this may mean asking a director from another function, or engaging someone external. It is worth the inconvenience.
An allegation of "unprofessional behaviour" or "poor attitude" gives the employee nothing to respond to and cannot support a finding. State what is said to have happened, on what date, and why it breaches a specific provision. If the conduct cannot be described that way, reconsider whether it is a misconduct matter at all.
These are the three limits that are most often exceeded. Suspension pending inquiry may not exceed one week; the employee must be paid at least half salary; and if misconduct is not established, the withheld amount must be restored in full. Where an inquiry genuinely needs longer, return the employee to duty or place them on paid leave rather than extending suspended pay — Clause 3.5 says so.
Establishing misconduct does not make dismissal automatically appropriate. A long clean record, a first offence, genuine mitigation, or inconsistent treatment of comparable cases all bear on the outcome. Step 12 of the inquiry record requires the reasoning to be written down — a decision showing no consideration of proportionality is vulnerable even where the facts are proved.
An employee who considers a dismissal wrongful may lodge a claim, which is mediated at the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management and, if unresolved, heard at the Employment Claims Tribunal. Remedies can include reinstatement or compensation. Dismissal without due inquiry, dismissal on a ground the employer cannot evidence, and dismissal to avoid a benefit falling due are the recurring bases.
Characterising a performance problem or a redundancy as misconduct in order to dismiss without notice is transparent and expensive. If the real reason is performance, use the performance process. If it is redundancy, follow the retrenchment route with its own notification requirements.
Where the Company proposes to deduct from salary for damage or loss caused by the employee, a separate due inquiry into that damage or loss is required, giving the employee an opportunity to explain, and the deduction is capped. A deduction imposed as part of the disciplinary outcome without that inquiry is not properly authorised.
Where the employer dismisses, all sums due are payable on the last day of employment — including where the dismissal is for misconduct. Withholding final pay pending recovery of property or an alleged loss is not permitted beyond deductions the law allows.
Complaints of harassment are dealt with under the anti-harassment policy and, where relevant, the Protection from Harassment Act. Running a harassment complaint through a general disciplinary inquiry risks handling it inappropriately for the complainant and inadequately for the respondent. Clause 1.3 routes it correctly.
Where the employee holds a work pass, dismissal triggers pass cancellation, tax clearance obligations and, for some pass types, repatriation responsibilities. Those steps run in parallel with, and are not part of, the inquiry — but plan them, because the timelines are short once the decision is made.
The notice, the evidence, the meeting record, the employee’s corrections, the findings, the reasoning and the appeal should sit in one place. Where a dismissal is challenged years later, this file is the entire defence, and its absence turns a straightforward matter into a contested one.
A significant review of the Employment Act is under way with proposals expected during the second half of 2026. Disciplinary and dismissal provisions are within scope. Diarise a review of this procedure once the outcome is published.
Reflects Singapore law current as of {{DATE OF USE}}. Suspension limits, deduction caps, notice requirements and Tribunal claim limits all change — take advice from an employment adviser before dismissing for misconduct, particularly where the employee is long-serving, holds a work pass, or has raised a grievance.
This is a ready-to-use template provided for convenience. Laws and requirements change, and every situation is different — please have it reviewed by a qualified professional (a lawyer, corporate secretary, or accountant as relevant) before you rely on it.