Company Sues Singapore Engineer For Refusing To Return Bonus
Recently, a company in Singapore brought an ex-employee to court for refusing to return his incentive money.
According to reports, the engineer received the bonus a day after tendering his resignation.
Following the trial, the court asked the engineer to return the claim as requested by the company.
Engineer handed in resignation a day before receiving bonus
According to court documents, the defendant Mr Sia Chien Kian tendered his notice of resignation on 25 March 2022.
A day later, he received the “variable incentive” — or bonus — in his bank account.
The company, Quantum Technologies Global Pte Ltd, then asked Mr Sia to return the bonus, claiming he was not eligible.
8world News reported that when the latter refused, the two parties went to court.
Quantum Technologies Global sought to claim the S$8,424 bonus paid out to Mr Sia.
Court documents revealed that the sum comprised S$7,200 paid in cash and another S$1,224 paid to Mr Sia’s Central Provident Fund (CPF) account.
Ex-staff claims he was unaware of clause in Employee Handbook
In court, Quantum Technologies Global argued that Mr Sia was not eligible for the incentive.
Based on a clause in the company’s Employee Handbook, he does not qualify for the bonus as he is serving his notice period in the same month the incentive is declared or paid.
However, he had received it nonetheless as the company had processed the bonus before receiving his resignation.
In response, Mr Sia claimed that he was not aware of the clause.
Additionally, he argued that the Employee Handbook was not part of his employment letter when he signed it on 18 Nov 2020.
Court orders engineer to return full sum of bonus
Despite Mr Sia’s arguments, the judge ruled in favour of the company.
Based on the court document, District Judge Vince Gui stated that Mr Sia was fully aware of the Employee Handbook.
In fact, on 9 Mar 2021, the company emailed Mr Sia informing him that the latest version of the handbook was available on a “Public Drive”.
Furthermore, a Human Resource (HR) staff from the company had informed him of clause 9 in his employment letter.
This clause expressly states that an employee would be “subject to such further terms as laid down in the prevailing Employee Handbook”.
As such, District Judge could not accept Mr Sia’s arguments and ordered him to return the bonus amount to the company
Have news you must share? Get in touch with us via email at news@mustsharenews.com.
Featured image by MS News.
