SINGAPORE — Mr Coconut, a popular retail chain selling coconut drinks here, rebutted claims of “unfair dismissal and discrimination to a pregnant woman”, after a Facebook post by a former employee went viral.

Responding to TODAY’s queries on Wednesday (Feb 7), the company said that its former customer service officer Charissa Tan’s poor performance, and not her pregnancy, was what led to her being dismissed.

On Jan 18, Ms Tan posted on Facebook claiming that the company had “heartlessly terminated (her) employment” on Jan 17 after finding out about her pregnancy.

When the company reached out to her via her Facebook post to investigate the matter, she said that she was "fully willing to cooperate" with any investigation and to give more information.

However, on Jan 23 when Mr Coconut contacted her formally to give more details on her allegations and sought her consent to make public their communications "in the spirit of full transparency", she "suddenly refused" to cooperate with the investigations, the company told TODAY.

In response to TODAY's enquiry, the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) and the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices said that they have arranged a mediation session between Ms Tan and Mr Coconut to “resolve the matter fairly” based on its relevant guidelines and legislations.

TODAY has tried reaching out to Ms Tan repeatedly for her comments but was unsuccessful.

On Wednesday evening, she posted an update on Facebook saying that she is "not allowed to share what happened today at TADM" due to reasons of privacy and confidentiality.

She added: "Unfortunately, we are unable to come to a conclusion today and the matter has been further escalated."

PREGNANCY ‘NEVER A CONSIDERATION’

Mr Coconut said that Ms Tan had joined the company on Nov 7 last year on a three-month probationary basis and this probation period was supposed to end on Feb 6.

During this period, either party may give the other 24-hours’ notice in writing to terminate the contract, on a no-fault basis.

Therefore, on Jan 17 when she was dismissed, Ms Tan was "actually not a confirmed employee" and was still in the midst of serving her three-month probation, Mr Coconut said.

It added that her termination was based on the 24-hours’ notice period stated in her contract.

It insisted that her pregnancy was “never a consideration” for her termination, and a longer one-week’s notice period was initially offered to her, but she then declined it.

In a report by AsiaOne website on Jan 26, Ms Tan said that her supervisor, upon knowing about her pregnancy, had asked her if she wanted to continue working. She replied that she would, in order to support her family.

"(My supervisor) told me she would speak to the bosses, then she told me… that she would keep me updated," Ms Tan was quoted as saying. "The next day, I was terminated."

Ms Tan also claimed that the termination was due to "poor performance", fragile health conditions and having a "subpar body posture at work".

Mr Coconut said that it had decided to terminate her services on Jan 15 and had published a job advertisement for her job role on the same day.

Ms Tan earlier claimed in her Facebook post that she had told her direct supervisor about her pregnancy on Jan 16.

In its statement, Mr Coconut said: “At the material time that the decision was made to not confirm Ms Charissa Tan’s probation on Jan 15, no one had any reason to believe or suspect that Ms Charissa Tan was pregnant. From closed-circuit television footages, Ms Charissa Tan was still heavily smoking, more than three to four times a day.” 

‘WATCHING MOVIE OPENLY IN OFFICE’

In her Jan 18 post, Ms Tan said that she had laid her head down on her desk one of the days when she was feeling unwell, having just recovered from Covid-19.

She added that she did the same for a few days to rest during her lunch hour.

In response, Mr Coconut revealed that through its investigations, she had propped her mobile phone up against her laptop screen and was watching a movie on it openly during office hours.

“This was not during lunch hour or nearing the end of the day as alleged in Ms Charissa Tan’s Facebook post,” it said.

The company separately addressed claims of Ms Tan taking unpaid leave due to Covid-19, saying that she had already taken 12.5 days of leave days before completing her probation. Her leave entitlement of 14 days would have started only after her probation.

SEEKING S$53,000

Mr Coconut said that Ms Tan had filed a complaint with TADM and is trying to make a claim of S$53,000 from the company. This sum is nearly 18 times her monthly salary of S$3,000.

It also said that although she had posted several screenshots of her alleged WhatsApp conversations with her direct supervisor in her Facebook post, she failed to disclose everything that had transpired.

This included one exchange of Ms Tan saying that she was going to “seize this opportunity” to “make this a big hooha”, it added.

Mr Coconut said that it takes a firm stance against any form of discriminatory employment practices and will not shy away from dealing with any such allegations fairly and openly.

“Following (our) investigations, we find no basis whatsoever to such grave allegations that Ms Charissa Tan had levelled against (us).

“Our invitation for Ms Charissa Tan to come forth to provide us with her further clarifications remain open. If so, Mr Coconut will review such further clarifications (if any) transparently and update these findings where necessary.

“We also would like to invite Ms Charissa Tan to put forth her current allegations in the form of a statutory declaration.”

In her interview with AsiaOne, Ms Tan said that she felt "devastated" and suffered from restless nights, adding that she was not in the “right state of mind” to get a new job.

"I don't think I'm mentally prepared to answer these questions professionally without any emotion attached."

In her latest Facebook post, she thanked people who had supported and encouraged her and said: "I am coping and don't worry about me."