A recent article from The Straits Times (“Title inflation: Was your promotion real or just on paper?”, published on 7 October 2025) explored a growing problem in today’s job market – inflated job titles without their corresponding job scope or pay. This phenomenon, often referred to as “title inflation”, describes the practice of assigning employees job titles that suggest greater responsibility, authority, or seniority than their actual duties or remuneration reflect.

In the article, individuals were described as being given lofty titles such as “senior manager”, “lead”, and even “chief operating officer”. However, it is unclear whether their day-to-day responsibilities matched the seniority of what their titles would suggest. In fact, it was reported that these individuals were made to do “grunt” work almost exclusively, a far cry from the job scope of a senior role.

In what can be seen as an endeavour to entice job seekers to “fast track” their careers with more prestigious-sounding titles, companies can often inadvertently blur the line between genuine advancement and superficial recognition. While such practices may offer some short-term appeal, companies should be alive to the legal risks they assume when they dress a job in far finer robes than it deserves. 

Beyond the broad operational and credibility costs that companies risk, as the article discusses, title inflation may expose companies to claims from both employees and shareholders. For our purposes here, we will focus on claims from employees.

In some instances, employees who find a significant mismatch between their promised job scope and the reality of their responsibilities may feel compelled to resign. Where such circumstances arise, it could be open to the law to regard the resignation as involuntary and, depending on the surrounding facts, potentially amounting to constructive dismissal. Whether it is deemed so will ultimately depend on the specific circumstances and evidence of each case.

At this point, these employees may seek to do one of two things: 

1. Bring a wrongful dismissal claim in the Employment Claims Tribunal (“ECT”); or 
2. Bring a constructive dismissal claim in the courts at common law. 

Each cause of action carries with it distinct differences in procedure, legal requirements, and available remedies. Understanding these distinctions is crucial for employees to know what legal recourse is available, and for employers to know the implications before promoting someone to a role adorned with a more prestigious title.

As with most employment disputes, the severity of issues and avenues available to both parties depend heavily on the facts of the case. Indeed, what may appear to be unfair treatment in the workplace may not always meet the legal threshold sufficient to bring a claim against an employer. Obtaining legal guidance on the specific set of circumstances before commencing any action should be the first port of call. 

(1) Wrongful Dismissal

The current Employment Act 1968 (“EA”) provides a pathway for employees who were constructively dismissed to bring an action against their employer. As a starting point, Section 14(2) of the EA allows an employee who has been wrongfully dismissed (i.e without just cause or excuse) to file a claim with the ECT. 

The definition for ‘dismissed’ in the EA includes: the resignation of an employee if the employee can show, on a balance of probabilities, that the employee did not resign voluntarily but was forced to do so because of any conduct or omission, or course of conduct or omissions, engaged in by the employer.

In other words, where the conduct or omission of the employer forced the employee to resign, the employee may rely on Section 14(2) of the EA to seek compensation.

While the Tripartite Guidelines on Wrongful Dismissal merely acknowledges the existence of constructive dismissal or involuntary resignation, situations where employees would be deemed to have been “forced” to resign could include: 

1. A significant and unilateral reduction in job scope or responsibilities, especially where the employee is reassigned to duties far below their title or experience level;
2. Unjustified pay cuts, removal of key benefits, or changes to core terms of employment without the employee’s consent;
3. Persistent harassment, bullying, or humiliation in the workplace, where the employer fails to act despite being made aware; or
4. Conduct by the employer that undermines the employee’s status or trust — such as demotion without cause, exclusion from meetings or decision-making, or unreasonable changes to reporting lines

In practice, the typical flow of a claim under Section 14(2) of the EA would be that the employee resigns in response to their employer’s conduct, files a claim before the ECT and, if successful, recovers the salary and benefits that they would have been otherwise entitled had the notice period been served.

Under this section, the ECT is only allowed to grant reinstatement (which is surely not realistic option) or compensation in lieu of reinstatement which are likely to include (i) salary in lieu of notice (if the employer failed to give the required notice or payment), (ii) pro-rated salary for any partial month worked, (iii) encashment of accrued leave, (iv) any contractual benefits or allowances already earned or vested.

Furthermore, the circumstances surrounding title inflation may not be confined to wrongful dismissal alone. Where an employee is persistently subjected to unreasonable obstruction, belittling remarks, or conduct that undermines their ability to perform the duties originally promised, such behaviour may cross into the realm of workplace harassment. In certain serious circumstances, this could expose employers to liability under Section 4(1) of the Protection from Harassment Act 2014, which criminalises the use of any unreasonably threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour that cause harassment, alarm, or distress.

Indeed, both individuals and entities may be liable to the offence of intentionally causing harassment, alarm or distress which carries with it a fine not exceeding SGD 5,000.

(2) Constructive Dismissal Claim at Common Law

Filing a constructive dismissal claim via the courts is a weighty action that would need serious consideration of the stakes at hand. Unlike the Section 14(2) EA claim, the common law claim for constructive dismissal invites the court to examine the circumstances of a dispute from a contractual dispute perspective.

In brief, the court will determine whether the employer’s actions sufficiently undermine an implied term of mutual trust and confidence in an employment contract thereby justifying a resignation. If found in the positive, despite the employee terminating the employment contract immediately unilaterally, the employer will be liable to pay to the employee the salary and benefits that they would have been otherwise entitled had the notice period been served.

In the case of Cheah Peng Hock v Luzhou Bio-Chem Technology Ltd [2013] SGHC 32 (“Cheah Peng Hock”), the claimant Cheah Peng Hock resigned after being demoted and sidelined by the company’s management, effectively preventing him from carrying out the duties that he was doing. He successfully argued that by doing so, he was constructively dismissed and was granted the amount he was entitled to under his employment contract – in this case the salary for the remaining term of his fixed term contract. 

The court in Cheah Peng Hock took the opinion that this implied term could extend to contexts including:

1. A duty not to act in a corrupt manner which would clearly undermine the employee’s future job prospects;
2. A duty not to unilaterally and unreasonably vary terms;
3. A duty to redress complaints of discrimination or provide a grievance procedure;
4. A duty not to suspend an employee for disciplinary purposes without proper and reasonable cause;
5. A duty to enquire into complaints of sexual harassment;
6. A duty to behave with civility and respect;
7. A duty not to reprimand without merit in an humiliating circumstances; and
8. A duty not to behave in a tolerable or wholly unacceptable way.

However, the more recent court case of Dong Wei v Shell Eastern Trading (Pte) Ltd [2022] (“Dong Wei”) SGHC(A) 8 at [82] cast doubt over the standing of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence in Singapore law – stating that because it has not been evaluated in the Court of Appeal (also known as Singapore’s apex court), the status of this implied term remains unsettled. Since this case, another High Court case Kallivalap Praveen Nair v Glaxosmithkline Consumer Healthcare Pte Ltd [2022] SGHC 261 have made reference to Dong Wei and Cheah Peng Hock to find that there was no implied term of mutual trust and confidence but was explicit in limiting its judgement to the facts of the case. While the nature and scope of this implied duty is not yet settled in law, it by no means suggests that it does not exist.

Applied to the context of title inflation, a case could be made that being relegated to menial or subordinate tasks that would be inconsistent with the seniority of their title constitutes a breach of this implied term – especially if surrounding circumstances indicate that the employee was led to believe, or reasonably expected to hold, a more senior set of responsibilities. Where the employee’s repeated attempts to clarify or rectify this discrepancy are met with neglect or hostility, the court could take the view that the employer effectively repudiated from the employment contract.

Conclusion

Taken together, the law in Singapore provides employees with limited but yet meaningful avenues for redress both under statute and at common law. While employees who find themselves an ocean away from the seniority of what their titles (or what has been set out in the key employment terms in their contracts) suggest may, rightfully, seek relief in the law, it is more likely that they would rather simply be given the genuine opportunity to perform the work they were hired and promised to do. What most seek is not litigation, but rather recognition. 

Employers are cautioned against reckless title inflation – to rather ensure that job titles, responsibilities, and pay are clearly aligned and documented in employment contracts. If there should be changes to key employment terms, they ought to be mutually agreed upon and must be recorded. As alluded to above, title inflation does not merely have its vulnerabilities in the legal relationship between employer and employee but also in company law where the consequences of misrepresenting seniority and authority can be significantly more severe – exposing the company to even more legal risks.

The character of title inflation in today’s world is ambivalent at its best and cynical at its worst. Where some employers may consider it to be a harmless tool to attract or retain talent, this practice brings with it notable legal risks if done recklessly. The lesson is straightforward but critical: promotions and titles need to be grounded in substance. 

In any case, it would be wise for any party caught in this unfortunate situation to seek legal advice on their specific case. Unlike some areas of law, issues related to employment law are ones that turn heavily on the facts of each case.

For more information on this article, please contact Jennifer Chih

“The information provided in this page is for general informational purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal advice. We do not warrant its accuracy or completeness or accept any liability for any loss or damage arising from any reliance thereon. While we strive to provide accurate and up-to-date information, the legal landscape is constantly evolving, and the details of any given case may change over time.”