A 52-year-old man in Singapore, Vict Lim Siong Hock, was fined $4,000 for wrongfully confining nine of his former colleagues in an office for an hour after he was fired by his company.
The incident unfolded on September 1, 2022, at the Pantech Business Hub, sparking concerns about workplace grievances and the consequences of such actions.
A Workplace Grudge Takes a Troubling Turn
Vict Lim Siong Hock had embarked on a job as a driver and logistics assistant at an electronics company located within the Pantech Business Hub.
His employment began on July 1, 2022, following his recruitment in late May of the same year. Lim’s tenure was short-lived, as he was terminated on August 30, 2022, before completing his probationary period.
Following his abrupt dismissal, Vict Lim harbored resentment and frustration about his termination. These negative emotions fueled a misguided and drastic course of action.
Feeling wronged by his former employer, Lim devised a plan to symbolically express his grievances.
On September 1, 2022, around 2:20 pm, armed with a padlock purchased from a hardware shop, Vict Lim arrived at his former workplace – an electronics company office within the Pantech Business Hub where he locked the entrance door with the padlock, effectively confining anyone inside.
Lim’s plan to confine his former colleagues was marred by a significant misjudgment. He assumed that his ex-colleagues were on lunch breaks, a belief that proved to be inaccurate.
In reality, there was always an employee present to safeguard the office premises at any given point in time. About 10 minutes after Lim padlocked the door, an employee attempted to leave for the restroom and discovered the door was locked from the outside.
The Aftermath and Legal Ramifications
As the realization dawned upon the trapped employees, anxiety and concern swept through the office. A total of nine individuals were confined within the office premises, unsure of the intentions behind the door being padlocked.
Acting swiftly, the employees sought help from a colleague who worked elsewhere in the building. This colleague confirmed the unfortunate truth – the entrance was indeed locked from the outside.
To rectify the distressing situation, the company’s owner engaged the services of a locksmith, expending approximately S$80 to remove the padlock and liberate the trapped employees.
Following the incident, the owner took decisive action, lodging a police report against Vict Lim. The case garnered further momentum as closed-circuit television footage provided a clear account of Lim’s actions, leaving little room for ambiguity.
In light of his actions, Vict Lim Siong Hock faced the legal repercussions of his wrongful confinement. The court deemed his actions unacceptable and fined him S$4,000 (US$2,976) for his transgressions.