Training provider sues SkillsFuture for not paying out $1.4m in grants

SINGAPORE - A training provider has sued SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) for not paying out more than $1.4m in grants, after the government agency terminated its contract to provide funding for the courses the company had conducted.

The Centre for Competency-Based Learning and Development (CBLD) is suing for breach of contract and wrongful termination.

The centre provides courses on cleaning hard floor surfaces, washrooms or carpets, and courses on providing quality customer service, among others.

It offers training to employees of companies which pay a small fraction of the full training fee. It would then apply to SSG for a grant to cover the remaining fee.

SSG denied that the company was entitled to the sum it was claiming.

The agency provides funding to subsidise the costs of conducting and attending eligible training courses.

It said it terminated the contract after its investigations into the company’s training practices revealed discrepancies that could not merely be dismissed as “administrative errors” or “minor inaccuracies”.

SSG said there were large discrepancies between the number of hours attended by the trainees and the number recorded on attendance sheets. Some trainees said the signatures on the attendance sheets were not theirs.

One trainee said she attended two half-hour sessions at a coffee shop, while the attendance sheet stated she attended 47 hours of training.

The agency has also counterclaimed against CBLD to claw back about $793,000 in grants it had earlier disbursed to the company. An 11-day trial to hear the case started in the High Court on Thursday.

In 2007, the company entered into a SkillsConnect contract with SSG, for the agency to award training grants to CBLD.

CBLD said SSG had initially approved its claims for more than $1.4 million, in relation to classes conducted over nine months. It said the sum would have been paid out if the contract had not been terminated.

SSG said that between April and July 2020, it called trainees over the phone to find out more, and they said the information submitted by CBLD in its claims was “untrue, inaccurate and incomplete”.

On Oct 16, 2020, the agency served a notice on the company, stating its intention to terminate the contract.

In response, the company submitted its own internal investigation report on Nov 13, 2020. The report included declaration forms purportedly signed by 184 trainees, in which all but one said they had attended the full duration of the courses.

SSG was of the view that the report was not a sufficient explanation. In December 2020, it conducted face-to-face interviews with 14 trainees. One trainee said she did not attend any training nor did she sign any of the attendance sheets but felt pressured to sign a declaration that she attended the courses.

On March 25, 2021, SSG terminated the contract and demanded that CBLD return the sum of $793,083.79 it had disbursed. SSG relied on a clause stipulating that it could terminate the contract on the basis of its opinion that CBLD was “guilty of gross moral turpitude”.

CBLD, which is represented by Mr Keith Hsu of Emerald Law, argued that the termination was wrongful as the company had not breached this clause.

The company said it intends to show it was not guilty of gross moral turpitude, and minor administrative lapses should not have led SSG to form the opinion that it was. It argued that even if SSG was right in forming the opinion, the clause was unfair and should not be enforceable.

SSG, which is represented by Mr Cheong Chee Min of Lee & Lee, said the terms of the contract were drafted against the backdrop that grants are disbursed from public funds and the agency has to guard against fraud and abuse. It argued that it was not obliged to provide funds and the award of a grant is subject to terms and conditions.

SSG said it was of the opinion that CBLD had deceived or attempted to deceive the agency.