Clearing three points behind sacking case

The letter by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices and Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management misrepresented three facts about my case (Sacked employee who appealed given fair hearing; Forum Online, Aug 4).

My only intention of going to the MOM was to convert my termination into a case of resignation.

This was communicated clearly to the MOM in writing on Feb 23, which was before the March 5 date cited in the letter.

Second, the allegation I raised on June 18 was not new. It was a piece of evidence supporting an allegation that had been made at the outset.

The third statement regarding my acceptance of payment but filing an unfair dismissal appeal is a misrepresentation.

I accepted the conditions of termination under duress. And I had exhausted all internal channels in requesting a resignation before turning to the MOM.

I have been asking my former employer for the reason behind my sudden termination. To date, they have not got back to me.

The Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management officer who mediated in my case also shared with me that my former employer refused to disclose the reason to him.

I learnt of my "unsatisfactory performance" only through The Straits Times' Forum Online.

To put things in perspective, I had not got a single warning letter. Neither was I placed on any performance improvement plan.

Moreover, there was no formal conversation about my "unsatisfactory" performance. I was fired before the formal performance appraisal took place.

The only formal performance appraisal I had was my probation review in which I was given an early confirmation because of my good performance.

When I was denied the option to resign, my former employer told me that they would provide me a testimonial. The claim of "unsatisfactory" performance does not seem congruent with the willingness for a testimonial that is given to employees who have performed well.

The new allegation raised on March 13 is with regard to religion which is of a sensitive nature. My witness for this allegation does not wish to come forward. Hence, I was hesitant about raising this.

It is the Government's prerogative to decide on the time needed to process a case. It is also within the Government's purview to ensure that facts are correctly represented.

Lim Chia Yeo