Commentary: What a cancer survivor’s wrongful dismissal case tells us about the employer-employee relationship

Commentary: What a cancer survivor’s wrongful dismissal case tells us about the employer-employee relationship When illness strikes or life gets in the way, employees will become temporarily less available to their employers. This is normal and should not be an exception to be managed away, say SUSS professor Victor Seah and Singapore Cancer Society’s Tan Kwang Cheak. SINGAPORE: Would your company force you to resign after 17 years of service, because it could not accommodate you while you recovered from stage three cancer? This is what happened to an administrative assistant at an international school in Singapore whose requests for work adjustments, such as working from twice a week and leaving work early on some days to attend rehabilitation, turned into a point of contention with her employer. She later resigned, but an Employment Claims Tribunal (ECT) found that her resignation amounted to a wrongful dismissal and awarded her S$20,000 (US$15,616) in damages. This and other recent cases of wrongful dismissal, such as a man who was dismissed about three months after reaching retirement age, often provoke strong reactions. They raise a broader question about how companies respond when their employees become, in operational terms, inconvenient. Beneath the outrage lies something more specific: the violation of what organisational psychologists call the psychological contract. SIGNIFICANCE OF A PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACT Most people are familiar with the idea of a social compact or contract - the implicit agreement between citizens and the state about mutual rights and responsibilities. Psychological contracts operate similarly, but between employers and employees. They are the unwritten expectations, beliefs and perceived obligations that shape how people experience their work. Unlike employment contracts, they carry no legal force. Yet, they can carry enormous weight, influencing employee engagement, retention and productivity. For example, career growth in exchange for loyalty or recognition for going beyond one’s job scope. These are things employees expect, even when nothing is written down. When these expectations are violated, especially at moments of vulnerability or following a long employment relationship, the sense of betrayal can be acute and lasting. In the recent case, the administrative assistant had written to her employer on her last day that she felt “unsupported and unfairly treated” despite her long service. WHEN EMPLOYEES BECOME “TEMPORARILY INCONVENIENT” It is estimated that one in four Singapore residents is at risk of developing cancer in their lifetime. With cancer incidence rising among younger age groups, more employees will be navigating treatment, recovery and long-term health challenges while in the workforce. A cancer survivor may be medically cleared to return to work, yet continue to struggle with “invisible” symptoms like fatigue, reduced stamina, and cognitive effects sometimes known as “brain fog”. Simple tasks like processing emails now take much longer, leading to concerns about being perceived as less capable than before. Cancer can also become more of a chronic condition, meaning some treatment effects may continue for many months or years. Illness is only one reason employees may become temporarily less available to their employers. Similar challenges also arise in pregnancy, injury recovery and caregiving for elderly parents. The recent National Day Rally announcement of expanded childcare leave is, in effect, an acknowledgement that employees will become temporarily less available to their employers at various points in life - and that this is a normal feature of a working life, not an exception to be managed away. For employers, this means accepting that some tension between operational demands and employees’ needs may be inevitable. Yet, reasonable accommodation to the latter is not about employers automatically saying yes. It is about engaging in a genuine problem-solving process. The ECT’s findings in the recent case illustrate this. While the international school was not obligated to approve the administrative assistant’s work-from-home request, the magistrate found that the school showed no genuine willingness to consider or discuss her concerns. A range of outcomes might have emerged from honest dialogue: one work-from-home day instead of two, temporary coverage during absences or a time-limited trial arrangement. Yet, these were not meaningfully explored, according to the judgement issued on Aug 12. WHAT CAN EMPLOYERS DO? Practical solutions exist, with flexible work arrangements being the most immediate option. This is why the Singapore Cancer Society (SCS) runs dedicated return-to-work programmes for cancer survivors, with the aim of rebuilding an a cancer survivor’s physical work ability and confidence to return to employment, while guiding employers how to build inclusive environments. The administrative assistant was enrolled in one such programme. An occupational therapist at the SCS's rehabilitation clinic had also written a memo about ongoing side effects that might affect her return to work, and recommended work alternatives such as avoiding handwriting where typing was possible. Job redesign is another route for employers: rethinking which tasks are genuinely central to a role and which might be temporarily redistributed. Sometimes, the most meaningful solution is far simpler. The administrative assistant had said she was taken aback to learn that one concern raised by her manager was that no one would replenish the photocopier paper when she was not in the office. For most of us, doing this for a colleague who is recovering from cancer treatment would not feel like an imposition. Everyday acts of solidarity cost very little and can mean a great deal. WHAT EMPLOYERS STAND TO LOSE Not every company needs to cultivate a deeply relational, family-like workplace culture. That model does not suit every industry or employment arrangement. But the implicit commitments a company signals during hiring and communicates through everyday management should match what employees can realistically expect when they need support most. This means, for example, not pitching a transactional or highly structured role as a long-term, family-like career during recruitment. It also means recognising that concrete practices, such as how performance is appraised and compensation is structured, as well as whether supervisors speak openly about the use of flexible arrangements or communicate to employees what the organisation truly values, matter much more than any written policy. The gap between an organisation’s stated values and how it behaves toward a vulnerable employee is, ultimately, the clearest measure of what its psychological contract is actually worth. That can have tangible ripple effects, such as impact on staff morale and turnover rates, or even reputational damage should their identities ever become public. Psychological contracts, once broken, are difficult to repair. For employers, the better investment is not breaking them in the first place. Victor Seah is Director of Behavioural Insights Centre of Excellence at the Singapore University of Social Sciences. Tan Kwang Cheak is Chief Executive Officer of Singapore Cancer Society.