Recent updates to employment law in Singapore

Introduction

The third quarter of 2025 has seen several important developments in Singapore employment law. These range from strengthened enforcement against vaping in the workplace, to an upcoming review of the Employment Act, to ongoing consultation on the Workplace Fairness Bill, and recent case law clarifying employers’ disciplinary obligations and the strategic use of dispute resolution forums. This alert provides an overview of these key updates and their potential impact on employers operating in Singapore.

 

At a glance:

• Singapore employers encouraged to take firmer action against employees who vape.
• Upcoming review of the Singapore Employment Act.
• Consultation paper on the second Workplace Fairness Bill, including a proposal to expand the Employment Claims Tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear claims of up to SGD250,000 - a significant departure from earlier indicated compensation limits.
• Recent employment case law updates in Singapore.

 

A. Singapore employers encouraged to take firmer action against employees who vape.

The possession, use, purchase and sale of e-vaporisers has been illegal in Singapore since 2018, but this has not been strictly enforced by the authorities historically. Recently, however, due to the increased use of e-vaporisers (commonly known as 'vapes') and the emergence of drug-laced vapes containing substances such as etomidate, significant steps have been taken to crack down on vaping.

In his National Day Rally speech in August 2025, the Singapore Prime Minister announced that vaping will be treated as a drug issue and harsher penalties will be introduced.

In this regard:

• Etomidate (a substance commonly found in vapes) is now categorised as a 'Class C drug' under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1973 (MDA) for 6 months from 1 September 2025. Under the MDA, it is an offence for a person being the owner, tenant, occupier or person in charge of any place or premises, to allow drug activities to be conducted in the place or premises. With respect to Class C drugs, the potential penalties for the owner, tenant, occupier or person in charge of the premises are a fine of up to SGD10,000 and/or imprisonment of up to 5 years.
• Where the offence is committed by a company, liability can also extend to directors and officers if it can be shown that the offence was committed with the 'consent or connivance of, or attributable to the neglect of, such person'. While there are no known cases of the Singapore authorities enforcing this provision against companies in the context of vaping-related offences by its employees, we anticipate that the authorities may begin taking firmer action against companies given the increasing scrutiny in this area.

The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) has also encouraged companies to establish HR policies to address situations where employees contravene the vaping laws in Singapore, including disciplinary measures.

In light of these developments, it would be prudent for employers to review and update their HR policies to: (i) include clear prohibitions on vaping-related conduct in the workplace; (ii) set out disciplinary consequences for breaches; and (iii) reinforce compliance with Singapore’s legal framework to mitigate organisational risk.

It would also be timely to issue a company-wide communication to remind employees of the new laws against vaping and clarify the company's stance on this issue, making clear that breaches (particularly in the workplace) will be dealt with appropriately.

 

B. Upcoming review of the Singapore Employment Act.

On 4 August 2025, it was announced that a Tripartite Workgroup (TWG), comprising union, employer and senior government representatives, had convened its first meeting to review the Employment Act 1968 (EA). The EA is Singapore's principal labour statute covering statutory employment rights, obligations and liabilities for almost all employees, and was last comprehensively updated in 2019.

Specifically, the TWG will study and develop recommendations to update the EA to account for the changing labour force profile, evolving forms of work, and challenging economic landscape. This includes ensuring adequate protections for different groups of workers, and streamlining the EA to reduce regulatory and compliance costs for businesses.

The TWG’s work will be guided by the following objectives: (i) to safeguard basic employment standards; (ii) to strike the right balance between business and labour interests while maintaining space for employers, employees, and unions to reach sustainable and mutually beneficial agreements; and (iii) to preserve a well-functioning labour market as Singapore’s competitive advantage to ensure a productive workforce and thriving businesses.

The TWG will consult stakeholders, including employers and employees, and expects to complete its work and submit its recommendations to the Government in the second half of 2026.

 

C. Consultation paper on the second Workplace Fairness Bill.

As announced previously, Singapore's first workplace anti-discrimination legislation, the Workplace Fairness Act (WFA), will be introduced in two parts. The first bill, which covers the definition of 'discrimination' and parties' substantive rights and obligations, was passed in Parliament in January 2025 - please refer to our previous article for more details. The second bill will cover the approach to resolving workplace fairness disputes and the procedures for managing such claims.

On 26 August 2025, the MOM published a consultation paper on approach for resolving workplace fairness disputes and procedures for making workplace fairness claims (Consultation Paper) covering: (i) the approach to amicable and expeditious resolution of workplace fairness disputes; (ii) the judicial forum to hear workplace fairness claims; and (iii) the representation of parties by unions for workplace fairness claims. The MOM has invited members of the public to provide feedback on the Consultation Paper.

Approach to amicable and expeditious resolution of workplace fairness disputes

The Consultation Paper proposes a two-tier approach to workplace fairness disputes, focusing on amicable resolution of disputes, which involves the following steps:

• Parties must first attempt to resolve disputes through the employer's internal grievance handling processes; and
• If the dispute is not resolved internally, a private claim may be filed. Mandatory mediation would be required before the claim can be referred to the Employment Claims Tribunal (ECT) for adjudication. Even at the adjudication stage, parties will remain subject to a duty to consider amicable resolution, and the courts may take into account parties' efforts at amicable resolution when awarding costs.

Judicial forum to hear workplace fairness claims

The Consultation Paper proposes different judicial forums to hear workplace fairness claims depending on the claim amount. In this regard, it is proposed that:

• The ECT's jurisdiction will be expanded to hear all workplace fairness claims up to and including SGD250,000, while the General Division of the High Court (GDHC) will hear all workplace fairness claims above SGD250,000;
• Claims in the ECT will not be bound by the rules of evidence in the civil courts and legal representation by lawyers will not be permitted; In contrast, claims heard in the GDHC will be bound by strict rules of evidence and procedures and legal representation by lawyers will be permitted; and
• All workplace fairness claims - regardless of whether they are brought in the ECT or the GDHC - will be heard in private, closed to the public and media, to minimize publicity, protect parties' privacy and reduce the risk of politicization or misrepresentation.

The proposed claim threshold is a significant and unexpected development. The Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness, in its final report in 2023, had indicated that compensation limits would likely align with the current wrongful dismissal framework - namely, up to SGD20,000 for non-union members and SGD30,000 for union-assisted claims, with up to SGD5,000 for 'pre-employment' claims. The reference in the Consultation Paper to claims of up to SGD250,000 therefore marks a substantial departure from previous indications. If implemented, this would open the door to significantly higher-value claims being brought against employers in Singapore. At this stage, there is also no guidance on how the ECT or GDHC would assess compensation levels or what factors would be taken into account in determining awards.

Representation of parties by unions for workplace fairness claims

The Consultation Paper proposes to allow unions to play a constructive role in helping parties navigate claims and encourage amicable settlements by:

• Allowing employees to be represented by their union for workplace fairness claims if they are employed in unionised companies; and
• Allowing employers to be represented by their union at the mediation sessions and the hearing of workplace fairness claims under certain circumstances - this will be a new feature for employers as they currently cannot be represented by their union in claims at the ECT.

 

D. Recent employment case law updates in Singapore.

(i) Procedural fairness in disciplinary dismissals

In Tan Tung Wee Eddie v Singapore Health Services Pte Ltd [2025] SGHC(A) 12, the Appellate Division of the High Court upheld the dismissal of wrongful dismissal claim on the grounds of misconduct. In that case, the sole issue on appeal was whether the employer was required to provide the employee with an opportunity to respond to additional audit results (which revealed further instances of the employee's unauthorised access to patient records), before deciding to terminate his employment.

The Appellate Division held that the employer was not contractually required to do so. This was because the further audit results did not introduce new allegations per se, but instead expanded on the misconduct already under investigation through the disciplinary process. Since the employee had already admitted to the misconduct in question, the further audit results merely quantified the extent and severity of the misconduct. Altogether, the Appellate Division concluded that the dismissal was procedurally fair and consistent with the employer's internal disciplinary framework.

Key takeaway: Employers are not necessarily required to reconduct the due inquiry process and allow an employee the opportunity to respond if there are supplementary findings which relate to misconduct that has already been addressed through a fair and transparent disciplinary process.

(ii) Strategic use of forums in employment disputes: Employment Claims Tribunals vs. Civil Courts

In Goh Hui En Rebecca v IG Asia Pte Ltd [2025] SGHCR 20, the Singapore High Court (HC) rejected an employer's application to strike out an employee's claim for breach of contract (for unpaid commissions), defamation and negligence.

The employee had previously succeeded in an ECT claim for payment of salary in lieu of notice. She subsequently initiated separate proceedings in the HC claim for the abovementioned causes of action. The HC held that this was not an abuse of process. The HC observed that the ECT was established as an accessible and efficient forum for resolving specified employment-related claims, such as unpaid salaries. While an employee is barred from seeking further relief for the same claim (i.e. claim for salary in lieu of notice) before another court for determination, they are not barred from bringing a different employment-related claim elsewhere, even if these claims arise from the same factual matrix or underlying event.

Key takeaway: Employees may legitimately seek quick relief at the ECT while reserving more complex or distinct claims for subsequent civil litigation, even if such claims arise from the same set of facts. Employers should exercise caution before asserting abuse of process where employees pursue different aspects of an employment dispute in multiple forums, provided the claims are substantively distinct and jurisdictionally appropriate.

 

Conclusion

These recent developments highlight the continued evolution of Singapore’s employment law landscape, with increasing regulatory scrutiny, new legislative reforms on the horizon, and judicial clarification on important procedural and strategic issues. Employers should take proactive steps to review workplace policies - particularly in relation to vaping and grievance-handling procedures - and remain alert to forthcoming legislative changes.

In particular, the proposed expansion of the ECT’s jurisdiction to hear claims of up to SGD250,000 represents a potentially far-reaching change, with the possibility of significantly increasing employers’ exposure to high-value claims.

For any enquiries about what these updates will mean for your business, please contact David Smail, Shu Ying Chua or Michelle Chua.

 

*DLA Piper is restricted for regulatory reasons from practising local law in Singapore. This article is not intended to constitute the general dispensation of advice on Singapore law.