JAYARETHANAM S/O SINNIAH PILLAI v ABOITIZ DATA INNOVATION PTE. LTD.

Facts

The claimant, Jayarethanam S/o Sinniah Pillai, worked for the defendant, Aboitiz Data Innovation Pte Ltd, a business solutions provider using data science, from 3 January 2022, latterly as head of data science consulting. On 18 December 2023 he received a redundancy notice giving two months' notice from 1 January 2024 and was placed on garden leave. The termination letter referred to a severance payment.

On 3 January 2024, while on garden leave, he sent two almost identical emails to two former employees of the defendant. He asked whether a bank client had come back on the defendant's proposal, said he could do the work for much less and faster with his own team, asked that clients with budget concerns be directed to him, gave his personal contact details and, in one email, asked the recipient to keep it to herself. After disciplinary hearings, the defendant terminated him with immediate effect on 31 January 2024 under clauses 13.1, 16 and 18.1 of his employment agreement, and an appeal panel upheld that decision.

In Magistrate's Court Originating Claim No 5394 of 2024 he claimed $27,700 for one month's salary, one month's severance, a half month's discretionary bonus and flexible benefits. He denied soliciting clients and said he had approval for outside business.

Issues

1. Whether the claimant breached clauses 13.1, 16 and 18.1 of his employment agreement
2. Whether the claimant's emails to former employees amounted to solicitation of the defendant's potential clients
3. Whether the claimant was entitled to the severance payment and discretionary bonus
4. Whether alleged unfairness in the disciplinary process affected the claim

Holding

The court dismissed the claim, finding the claimant had breached clauses 13.1, 16 and 18.1, that his termination was justified, and that he was not entitled to the severance payment or bonus in any event. Parties were directed to file submissions on costs.

Reasoning

On clause 13.1, the claimant relied on one paragraph in his curriculum vitae mentioning a consultancy, but it did not say he owned it, and he conceded he never told the defendant of his sole proprietorship and produced no written permission. His work on a project for the Bhutan government continued during his employment and was first revealed at the disciplinary hearing. It was not for him to decide on his own that it was irrelevant to the defendant's business.

The court found the two emails were deliberate and carefully crafted, not casual. By offering the same work to the defendant's clients at lower cost and asking that a client be diverted to him, he was attempting to solicit business from them, breaching the non-solicitation clause. This also put him in a conflict of interest contrary to the code of conduct, and so breached clause 16.

On severance, following Sea-Land Service Inc v Cheong Fook Chee Vincent [1994] 3 SLR(R) 250, a promise of severance must be supported by consideration. None existed: he did no work on garden leave, did not forbear from suing, and did not accept termination in reliance on the payment. He conceded it was a goodwill payment and that the bonus was discretionary.

Citing Leiman, Ricardo and another v Noble Resources Ltd and another [2020] 2 SLR 386, the employer owed no process beyond what the contract provided, and the court decides for itself whether a dismissal was justified.

From the judgment