Employment Law Update | August 2026
The Industrial Court recently reaffirmed that honesty during the recruitment process is fundamental to the employment relationship. In Jamie Iskandar Tang v. Jerald Gomez & Associates [2026] 2 ILR 568, the Court held that an employee's deliberate concealment of material information during an interview may amount to just cause or excuse for dismissal once the omission is discovered.
Background
The claimant was employed as a Legal Assistant under a two-year fixed-term contract.
During the recruitment process, he was asked about his previous employment and his relationship with his former pupil-master. He represented that the relationship had been good and that he had left to broaden his experience.
However, after he commenced employment, the employer discovered that he had previously lodged a disciplinary complaint against his former pupil-master before the relevant professional disciplinary body. This fact had not been disclosed during the interview. The omission only came to light when the claimant sought leave to attend the disciplinary proceedings arising from his own complaint.
The employer regarded the omission as a material concealment that undermined the trust and confidence necessary for the employment relationship and proceeded to terminate his employment.
The claimant challenged the dismissal, alleging that:
there was no just cause or excuse;
the dismissal was procedurally unfair; and
the absence of a domestic inquiry rendered the dismissal invalid.
Industrial Court's Decision
The Industrial Court dismissed the claimant's claim.
The Court found that the non-disclosure concerned a material fact that was directly relevant to the employer's hiring decision. Had the information been disclosed during the interview, the employer's evidence was that it would not have offered employment to the claimant.
Importantly, the Court distinguished between:
making negative comments about a former employer; and
truthfully disclosing objectively verifiable facts when specifically asked during a recruitment interview.
The Court held that the claimant had crossed the line from exercising discretion into deliberately concealing information material to the recruitment process.
Contemporaneous Documents Carried Significant Weight
A notable aspect of the decision was the Court's reliance on the claimant's own contemporaneous explanation letter.
In that letter, the claimant acknowledged the non-disclosure and apologised. The Court regarded this contemporaneous document as more reliable than the explanations advanced during the Industrial Court proceedings.
This serves as another reminder that documents created at or near the time of the relevant events frequently carry substantial evidential weight in employment disputes.
No Domestic Inquiry Does Not Automatically Invalidate a Dismissal
The claimant also argued that the dismissal was procedurally defective because no domestic inquiry had been conducted.
The Industrial Court rejected this argument, reiterating the well-established principle that proceedings before the Industrial Court are heard de novo. Accordingly, the absence of a domestic inquiry is not, by itself, fatal to an employer's case, provided the employer can establish just cause or excuse before the Court.
Practical Takeaways
For employers:
Recruitment interviews should include clear questions requiring applicants to disclose matters that may materially affect suitability for employment.
Offer letters and employment contracts should contain express warranties that all information provided during recruitment is true, complete and not misleading.
Employers should retain interview notes and recruitment records, as these may become important evidence if a dispute arises.
For employees:
Applicants are expected to answer recruitment questions honestly and completely.
Material omissions may be treated in the same manner as positive misrepresentations where they influence an employer's decision to hire.
A failure to disclose relevant information may justify dismissal even after employment has commenced.
Conclusion
This decision underscores that the duty of honesty begins before employment starts. Material non-disclosure during recruitment may constitute a serious breach of trust capable of justifying dismissal, particularly where the undisclosed information would have affected the employer's decision whether to employ the applicant.
Disclaimer: This bulletin is intended for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Specific legal advice should be obtained based on the particular facts and circumstances of each case.
