Reflections on My Dismissal: Upholding Integrity in the Face of Injustice

As I continue to share my story, I revisit a particularly painful chapter – my termination from the organization where I once served as Head. In this update, I go into the events that led to my dismissal, shedding light on the errors and unfair treatment I endured.

This is a critical message for all organizational leaders: it's imperative to reassess your risk management strategies and internal investigation procedures.

The most distressing moment came when I resisted complying with inappropriate demands for access to confidential information. The board, quite unexpectedly, involved the police to forcibly remove me from my office. The officers themselves acknowledged the discomfort of the situation. I queried them about the necessity of such an escort, only to be informed that I was accused of insubordination due to eviction and limiting board members' access.

Despite presenting evidences, such as I am the Head of Organisation and I am in charge of running the day to day operations and it is my duty to protect the organisation.

I showed the police the following;

1. The office space agreement that was signed by me as the Head.
2. Presented the official PDPC report, on the potential data breach reported
3. Emails to various govt authorities regarding the potential data breach.
4. Notifications to staff, board members and volunteers about temporary access restrictions until the new outsourced DPO is on board.

Despite my proactive efforts, including highlighting the ongoing renovations to the authorities on the newly meetings and conference rooms for board members, were sadly rendered meaningless.

My efforts to protect the organisation were all in VAIN.

Unfortunately, the police couldn't offer any assistance either, as they lacked any official records to act upon.

The one thing I regret the most was not REPORTING the potential data breach to the police when I was first informed. Every incident, regardless of its immediacy, deserves to be lodged officially. By reporting it to PDPC only is not enough.

If I had filed a police report when I learned about the potential data breach, things might be different.

What deeply haunts me is the memory of that day:

The indelible image of being escorted out of my office, amidst my team and during a bustling workday, will always stay with me. I felt like a criminal, shamed and disgraced. This experience left me feeling as though I had failed both my team and the entire organization.

The fairness of the board's inquiry was questionable.

1. The inquiry took more than a month to contact me. There were few reminder emails from me to the HR dept requesting for updates and the next step to the inquiry.
2. The inquiry was led by an office bearer, known for constant conflicts with me and who had raised concerns about the data breach before this too.
3. The involvement of a junior staff member, potentially a complainant, during the inquiry, further tainted the inquiry's integrity.
4. And I wasn't even given the opportunity to present and explain my case, as it is done one way.

Individuals with expertise in legal and in compliance background would be able to identify the shortcomings in this process.

A few weeks following the Inquiry, I found myself in the office, facing the Lead Investigator from the Inquiry, another Office Bearer, the HR Manager (Staff) , and a HR Executive (Staff). The Office Bearers informed me of their decision to terminate my employment.

I raised the question of why I wasn't given the opportunity to present my case and explanation, but it seemed unheeded. The Office Bearers confirmed that the Board has approved.

I then asked the HR Manager if this is correctly done, no reply from him.

Beside me, a large stack of boxes containing all my personal belongings was packed, ready for me to take home. This was the respect accorded to me as the Head of the Organisation.

In a state of disappointment, I chose to leave everything behind and walked away without taking anything.

Governance Training: Both key, management staff and board members require thorough training in governance and compliance.

Clear Protocols: Establishing and adhering to clear protocols for handling sensitive documents and conducting inquiries is crucial.

Empowering HR: The HR department should be empowered to enforce governance standards and challenge breaches. (In my next article, I will be sharing the importance of empowering your HR Department. Give them the resources and autonomy to be impartial guardians of proper protocols.)

Legal Frameworks: Organizations must have legal frameworks in place to handle such disputes and protect the rights of their employees.

For Non-Profit Leaders:

• Data security and ethical governance are not platitudes; they're lifelines. Don't shy away from raising concerns, even if it means facing opposition.
• Please seek external counsel. When shadows linger, legal and ethical guidance are your north star.

My termination was a blow, but it ignited a fire within me. Speaking out isn't just about personal vindication; it's about building a stronger and more accountable nonprofit sector, where ethical leadership, not personal agendas, prevails.

This battle goes beyond just me; it's about upholding the integrity of the entire sector that we are all committed to serving.

What is the right approach to such Inquiries?

Referring to the "Guide to Workplace Investigations - Singapore Chapter" for insights into conducting fair workplace investigations. It emphasizes the importance of a fair, transparent, and legally compliant approach, respecting the rights of all parties.

Summary of Key Points in Workplace Investigation Procedures in Singapore

Governing Legislation and Policies:

• Employer's internal grievance policy or contractual guidelines
• Ministry of Manpower (MOM) and Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) guidelines and advisories
• Employment Act 1968 (e.g., "due inquiry" before dismissal)

Employee Suspension:

• Possible during investigation, with specific conditions (e.g., half pay, limited duration) ; Requires proper justification and consideration of employee's track record

Investigator Qualifications:

• Authorized and empowered by employer; Not in conflict of interest, independent and impartial; Familiar with investigation procedure and relevant expectations

Employee Rights during Investigation:

• Can apply to court to stop the investigation if employer breaches procedural fairness
• Cannot be compelled to act as witness, but may be required under contractual obligations
• Protected by data privacy laws (e.g., PDPA)
• Consensual search of personal possessions allowed, but company files/emails accessible

Whistleblower Protection:

• Identity confidential for specific offences (e.g., corruption, governance breach, etc)
• Employer may need to disclose information to authorities

Confidentiality:

• Generally depends on employment contract, handbook, or internal policies
• Tripartite Advisory on workplace harassment recommends confidentiality for involved parties
• Workplace Fairness Legislation may impose additional confidentiality obligations

Information for Employee under Investigation:

• Sufficiently clear and specific to understand and respond to allegations
• Evidence against them should be disclosed
• Reasonable opportunity to respond

Confidentiality of Sources: Can be kept confidential, subject to exceptions (e.g., court orders, police requests)

Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs): Permissible, but information may still be discoverable in court or by authorities

Privilege of Investigation Materials:

• Litigation privilege may attach if created for pending or contemplated litigation
• Legal advice privilege may attach if created to seek legal advice or contains embedded legal advice

Employee Representation:

• No legal right to representation, but employer may allow it at their discretion

Works Council/Trade Union Involvement:

• Employee has right to seek assistance and involvement and procedures usually outlined in collective agreement or employee handbook

Support for Employees:

• Employers may offer counselling, remind employees of zero-retaliation policy, and adjust work arrangements

Unrelated Matters Revealed: Investigated separately under existing grievance processes

Employee Grievance during Investigation:

• Handled under existing grievance processes, separately or jointly with investigation

Parallel Criminal/Regulatory Investigations: Permissible, with cooperation with authorities and sharing of evidence

Outcome of Investigation:

• Communicated to employee under investigation, including findings, disciplinary action, and appeal process

Sharing Investigation Report:

• Summary of findings shared with complainant and respondent
• Full report may be disclosed to authorities in parallel investigations

Next Steps for Employer:

• Follow-up actions, track appeals, and implement disciplinary measures if necessary

Disclosure of Investigation Findings:

• Summary to complainant and respondent; Full report to authorities in parallel investigations; Interview records private unless court order or authorities require disclosure

Retention of Investigation Outcome:

• Duration depends on company policy and severity of offence

Employer Liability for Investigation Errors:

• Legal action, voiding of investigation, damages to employee, penalties by authorities

You may also refer to this website >> Workplace Investigations for more details.

These are important points that I’ve gathered from the link provided. Should you need more clarification on the above, please do not hesitate to ask. I will be glad to help.