Director of PR firm sacked for secretly recording internal meeting loses wrongful dismissal claim

In Singapore, secretly recording a company meeting could constitute misconduct that justifies immediate dismissal, according to a magistrate's decision that dismissed a wrongful dismissal claim. The claimant, identified only as JJT in court documents, was fired while serving a three-month notice after being told her employment was being terminated without cause in February.

This comes after the company's president noticed JJT had covertly recorded a meeting she attended with the firm's chief human resources officer on March 3. The meeting was a regular weekly business gathering where JJT responded to allegations of workplace lapses during her notice period. The tribunal magistrate, Kerry Chan, ruled that recording the meeting without consent indeed fell under misconduct, noting the confidentiality risks that a public relations firm faces due to handling sensitive client information.

JJT was given the option to serve her three-month notice or remain on immediate garden leave with two months' salary, choosing to work until May 22. Days after being informed about her termination, JJT received a formal misconduct warning for several lapses during her notice period, such as unauthorized client contact and forgetting her team member's name at a business meeting.

During the March 3 meeting, JJT recorded the conversation using her phone after providing an explanation for her lapses. She subsequently deleted the recording and left her phone outside the room. The company's president later informed JJT about the unauthorised recording, requesting time to review its implications. On March 6, JJT was handed an immediate termination letter stating that recording an internal company meeting without consent was a fundamental breach of trust and confidence required in an employment relationship.

The claimant argued her dismissal was wrongful as she recorded the meeting solely as a note-taking aid and promptly deleted it upon request, claiming no confidential information was discussed. However, the tribunal determined that the act of covertly recording the meeting alone was sufficient to destroy the trust and confidence in the employment relationship, regardless of JJT's intentions or the absence of malicious intent.