In a striking turn of events, a Singaporean worker has taken to social media to voice his discontent after his boss demanded a three-month resignation notice, contrary to the one-month notice period stipulated in his contract. This scenario unfolded on the Reddit forum r/askSingapore, where the employee shared his recent dilemma amidst securing a lucrative new job offer with a staggering pay increase of 60%.

The worker detailed that he intended to formally resign in January to adhere to his contractual obligations. However, during a casual meeting with his superior, his boss unexpectedly suggested extending the notice period to three months, citing the ongoing difficulty in finding suitable replacements for the role he currently occupies.

In his post, he remarked, “I’ve been with this company for three years, and the pay is below market plus the workload is colossal—managing the entire department alone has been exhausting.” He emphasized that this position was his first job after graduating, and despite hopes for growth, he has not received any promotions during his tenure.

Seeking guidance from the online community, he expressed his uncertainty about whether to comply with his boss's request or honor the terms of his contract. He’s understandably concerned about preserving relationships in the workplace while facing a challenging decision.

The discussion that ensued saw a wave of support and diverse opinions from fellow Redditors. Many urged the worker to stick to the contractual terms, noting that employment contracts are legally binding documents that protect both parties. "Always follow the black and white; they cannot legally stop you," advised one user, urging clarification if the boss might have been misinformed about the notice period.

Others noted that the worker should not feel guilty about leaving a position where he felt undervalued and overburdened. “If you’re underpaid, overworked, and treated like a one-man army, it’s worth reconsidering your loyalties,” recommended a commenter.

Yet, some suggested that extending the notice could be a gesture of goodwill, considering the difficulties mentioned by his boss in finding a replacement. “Giving three months shows professionalism and helps maintain good relationships, especially early in your career,” stated one supportive individual.

The question of whether employers can unilaterally enforce a longer notice period was also addressed during the discussions. According to the Ministry of Manpower (MoM) in Singapore, an employer cannot arbitrarily extend the notice period without mutual agreement from both parties. If the employee's contract states a one-month notice, then that is the legally binding period he is required to serve, regardless of the employer's wishes.

This situation highlights a critical issue many workers face within the employment landscape. The balance between adhering to contractual obligations and maintaining workplace relationships can often feel precarious. In the end, the worker is left pondering his next steps, with the support of an online community weighing heavily in favor of his right to prioritize his own career advancements.

What this case illustrates is the complex interplay between contract law and workplace dynamics, urging employees everywhere to thoughtfully navigate their exits while remaining firm in their rights.