Overview
We successfully represented a senior expatriate General Manager in the Industrial Court, where the employer terminated his employment following disputes relating to work permit renewal and remote working arrangements. The Court held that the dismissal was without just cause or excuse and amounted to an unlawful termination of employment.
This decision underscores the principle that employers cannot rely on administrative or immigration-related issues, without proper justification and engagement with the employee, to justify termination where the employment relationship remains subsisting.
Background Facts
Our client was employed in a senior managerial capacity under a fixed-term employment arrangement and had been performing his duties across multiple jurisdictions in line with the company’s operational requirements. As part of his role, he was permitted to work remotely while continuing to manage the company’s regional operations.
A dispute subsequently arose when issues relating to the renewal and status of his employment pass surfaced. The employer took the position that the employee’s continued remote working and the work permit situation rendered his role untenable and proceeded to terminate his employment.
Our client maintained that he had consistently discharged his duties, remained ready and willing to continue his employment, and that any administrative matters concerning work permits were within the employer’s responsibility to manage as the sponsoring entity.
Issues Before the Court
The core issue before the Industrial Court was whether the employer had just cause or excuse to terminate the expatriate employee’s employment based on the alleged work permit complications and concerns over remote working arrangements.
The Court was required to determine whether these reasons genuinely justified the termination or whether they were merely pretexts insufficient to amount to lawful grounds for dismissal.
Our Position: Work Permit Issues Did Not Justify Termination
We submitted that the existence of issues relating to the employee’s work permit did not automatically entitle the employer to terminate the employment relationship. As the sponsoring employer, the company bore a responsibility to take reasonable steps to regularise and manage immigration-related compliance rather than prematurely sever the employment relationship.
We further argued that there was no evidence that the employee had refused to comply with any lawful instruction, nor was there any proven misconduct or incapacity that would justify termination. Instead, the employee remained ready to perform his duties and continued to contribute to the company’s operations.
The Court accepted that administrative challenges relating to work permits, without more, do not constitute just cause for dismissal where the employee remains willing and able to work.
Our Position: Remote Working Was Consistent with the Employment Arrangement
The employer also relied on the employee’s remote working arrangement as a basis to question the viability of his continued employment. We demonstrated that the remote working model had been part of the operational reality of the company and had been accepted for a substantial period during the course of employment.
There was no clear evidence that the employee’s performance had deteriorated or that his remote working arrangement had caused any operational prejudice to the company. On the contrary, the evidence showed that he continued to discharge his managerial responsibilities effectively.
The Court agreed that the employer could not retrospectively rely on a working arrangement that had previously been accepted as a reason to justify termination.
Decision of the Industrial Court
After considering the totality of the evidence and submissions, the Industrial Court held that the employer failed to establish any valid or justifiable ground for dismissal. The reasons advanced, namely the work permit issues and remote working concerns, were insufficient to amount to just cause or excuse.
The Court found that the termination was unjustified and that the employee had been unfairly dismissed. Accordingly, the claim for unfair dismissal succeeded.
Conclusion
This successful outcome reinforces the principle that employers must demonstrate genuine and substantive justification before terminating an employee, particularly in cases involving expatriate personnel where immigration compliance and operational arrangements are often intertwined.
