EMPLOYMENT (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.05 p.m.

The Minister for Labour (Mr Ong Pang Boon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr Speaker, Sir, during the legislative reform of 1968, certain management rights and functions, including the right to hire and fire, were restored to employers. Generally, employers have proved worthy of the trust placed upon them and have exercised the powers restored to them in a fair and responsible manner. There are, however, some irresponsible employers who are abusing these powers by dismissing employees without just cause or excuse. Where the dismissed employees are represented by trade unions, adequate redress is provided under the Industrial Relations Act which empowers the Minister to order reinstatement or payment of compensation if, after due inquiry, he is of the opinion that the dismissal was without just cause or excuse. Such redress, however, is not available to non-unionised employees. At present, all that the Commissioner for Labour can do is to order the employer to pay a salary in lieu of notice of termination which can only amount to a maximum of four weeks' pay depending on the length of service of the employee concerned. This is clearly no deterrent to those employers bent on maximising profits without any regard for the well being of their employees.

Hon. Members will no doubt agree with me that a non-unionised employee is as much entitled to protection against unjust dismissal as his unionised counterpart. Clause 2 of the Bill, therefore, seeks to provide that where an employee has been dismissed by his employer on ground of misconduct, he has a right to refer his case to the Minister if his dismissal was wrongful. The Minister will be empowered to order the reinstatement of the employee or to order the employer to pay compensation if, after due inquiry, he is satisfied that the dismissal was wrongful. Responsible and fair-minded employers will have nothing to fear, as the amendment is directed against the irresponsible amongst them.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is also a need to prevent exploitation of children and young persons, especially in the context of a tight labour market. Presently, a person who employs a child or young person without a Certificate of Registration issued by the Commissioner or contrary to the conditions set out in the certificate may, on conviction, be fined a sum not exceeding $500 or sentenced to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or both. As imprisonment has never been imposed by the Court, the maximum penalty of $500 is, therefore, not sufficiently deterrent and, of late, there is a growing tendency among employers to engage children and young persons to work in factories and other industrial establishments with scant regard for their safety and health at the work place. Members will agree with me that, notwithstanding the requirements of industries, our obligation must be to ensure that high standards of health and safety prevail in establishments employing children and young persons. Since employers must be deterred from employing young workers without regard for their health and safety, the maximum fine will be increased from $500 to $2,000 by clause 7 of the Bill. Also, where a child or young person suffers serious injury or death arising from a contravention of the provisions of the Employment Act, the Court shall, upon the coming into force of this Bill, impose a mandatory fine of $2,000.

Last October, my colleague, the Minister for Health, outlined in his Ministerial Statement in Parliament the measures to be taken to encourage family planning. One of these measures calls for the curtailment of paid maternity leave for employees in both the public and private sectors from three to two confinements with effect from 1st August this year. For employees in the public sector, appropriate amendments to the Instruction Manuals have been made by the Ministry of Finance. As for the private sector, clause 19 of this Bill seeks to provide that a female employee will not be entitled to any pay when she absents herself from work during a confinement if at the time of confinement she has two or more surviving children. This clause also supersedes whatever agreement that may be provided under any existing collective agreements insofar as they provide for better or more favourable maternity benefits.

There are, however, three compensatory aspects of clause 19 which deserve special mention. Firstly, maternity benefits as provided under Part X of the Act are presently only applicable to female workmen. These statutory entitlements will now he extended by clause 19 to all female employees. This amendment ensures that all female employees will be well taken care of up to two confinements, thereby safeguarding the health of both mother and child.

Secondly, the present Act provides that a female workman is entitled to paid maternity leave four weeks before and four weeks after her confinement. If she gives birth prematurely, i.e, before the estimated date of delivery, she will not be able to enjoy the four weeks of paid maternity leave before her confinement. This will now be amended by clause 19 which provides that where a female employee has worked in her employment for any day during the period of four weeks immediately before her confinement, she shall be entitled to receive, in addition to her ordinary rate of pay for that day, an amount equivalent to a day's pay or to absent herself from work on another day at the end of her benefit period. In other words, every female employee is entitled to the full maternity leave of eight weeks or pay in lieu of any portion of such leave.

Thirdly, the present Act provides that a female workman will forfeit in toto her maternity benefits if she fails to give proper notice of confinement to her employer. This is unduly harsh especially where failure to give notice is due to genuine ignorance of the legal requirement on the part of the female workman concerned. Clause 19, therefore, seeks to provide that where a female employee fails to give proper notice of confinement to her employer, she will still he entitled to one half of the maternity benefits.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

3.15 p.m.

Mr N. Govindasamy: Mr Speaker, Sir, I read with considerable interest the Employment (Amendment) Bill. I am particularly interested in clause 2 of the Bill. To begin with, this clause seeks to introduce a form of procedure whereby a worker or an employee within the definition of the original Act may seek reinstatement in his former employment if he can satisfy the Minister that he has been dismissed from service without just cause or excuse by his employer.

Sir, as the Minister has pointed out, a similar procedure is found in section 35 (2) of the Industrial Relations Act. The only difference, of course, under section 35 (2) of the Industrial Relations Act, is that a worker who is aggrieved by his dismissal must make representation in writing to the Minister through his union, whereas under the provisions of the proposed amendment to the Employment Act he need not he a member of a union. We, in the NTUC, have in the past always regarded a worker, who is eligible to seek membership in the union but who refrains from joining a union, as a parasite in our society. Mr Speaker, Sir, from our point of view, the proposed procedure in clause 2 of the Bill is objectionable. You will agree with me, Sir, that in legislating matters which are interrelated, there should be some uniformity. Both the Employment Act and the Industrial Relations Act are pieces of legislation governing the relationship between the employer and the employee. I do hope that clause 2 of the Bill, which introduces a new section 14 in the Employment Act, could he amended at page 2, lines 7 and 8 of the Bill, to ensure that any representation to the Minister for reinstatement arising from a wrongful dismissal can be made only through a union and not otherwise. However, I do realise that it may be desirable to make suitable provisions in exceptional cases, such as dismissals of a prospective union member who may be engaged in organising workers in his place of employment or in cases where recognition of the union is withheld by the employer for lack of majority.

At this juncture, Sir, it would be relevant for me to draw the attention of the House to the need to consider introducing a clear and definite form of procedure in dealing with the merits of the representation for reinstatement. However, to understand and appreciate what I am about to propose, one has to go back to the year 1965. At the end of that year, Sir, the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 1965, was passed. One of the most important amendments was the granting of specific powers to the Industrial Arbitration Court to order the reinstatement of a dismissed employee. This power was removed in 1968 by a further amendment to the Industrial Relations Act. And now, Sir, only in cases of victimisation does the Court have the power to reinstate.

As a result of the restrictions placed on the Court's power to deal with dismissal cases, the only remedy available in the case of wrongful dismissal is that provided under section 35 (2) of the Industrial Relations Act. In the early stages following the amendment in 1968, a few inquiries were held at the Labour Court in the Labour Ministry, presided over by an officer appointed for that purpose. Witnesses were allowed to be called by both parties and could testify at the inquiry. To some extent the proceedings at such an inquiry, though informal, were well regulated and were quite satisfactory. For the past three years, however, no inquiries of such a nature have been held. Instead, when representation is made for reinstatement, Labour Ministry officials call for the parties separately and make their recommendations thereafter. In trade union circles, dismissal as a form of punishment, especially to a worker who has put in many years of service, is analogous to a death sentence as it is the supreme form of punishment. Nor shall we confine our attention only to the dismissed worker who may well be either the sole breadwinner or the main provider in his family. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, by one injudicious act an employer can inflict punishment on a group of innocent persons. It is, therefore, necessary for us when dealing with dismissal cases to extend our consideration to the family unit as well.

Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to deal with the relevant provisions in clause 2. In the proposed section 14 (1) (b), the employer is given the right to suspend a worker without payment of salary for a period not exceeding one week. This is a re-enactment of the existing provision. From experience, Sir, very few employers observe the provision to suspend a worker for one week. What they normally do is to hold an inquiry of their own. They make their own investigation without giving an opportunity to the suspended worker to explain or to counter the allegations of misconduct. In some cases, Sir, where the investigation cannot be completed within a week, the employers invariably proceed to dismiss, believing, rightly or wrongly, that if they do not dismiss after one week they might lose the right to dismiss. Even more disturbing, Sir, is the possibility that the employer, being engaged in more urgent business, may not be able to take prompt steps to investigate into the alleged acts of misconduct, and when he finds that the week is coming to an end through his neglect to take steps promptly, he will proceed to dismiss. In matters of this nature, Sir, it is desirable to extend the time where the case requires it. I would suggest that the suspension period for the purpose of an inquiry be one week initially, during which the employee is paid half his salary, with the possible extension of a further week on one quarter of his salary.

I have criticised the procedure adopted by employers by holding inquiries in the form of private investigation without the worker being given a chance to explain. We have found that there are always two versions to a story. In such an important matter as dismissal, there can be no justice unless the worker, against whom allegations of misconduct are made, is given a fair opportunity to state his case. In addition, he must be allowed to be represented by a union representative of his own choice and be allowed to contest the testimony of persons who have made statements against him. In other words, we consider that it is not only desirable but necessary that an employee, against whom allegations of misconduct are made, should be given the chance to confront witnesses from the management side who have made statements against him. I suggest, Sir, that the worker must also he given the opportunity to call any witnesses he considers necessary to testify on his behalf. Justice, Sir, must not only be done but also seen to be done.

The suggested procedure, as mentioned by me earlier, is particularly necessary following representations to the Minister for reinstatement following a wrongful dismissal. I observe that the Commissioner for Labour will he entrusted with the duty to inquire into the dismissal and to make the necessary report to the Minister. The suggested procedure I mentioned earlier should he followed each time the Commissioner carries out an investigation into a dismissal case referred to him by the Minister. The present procedure under the industrial Relations Act - that of meeting union representatives and management representatives separately has proved to be unsatisfactory. If this procedure is allowed to continue, the confidence of workers in the Labour Ministry will be shaken. And if confidence is shaken, it is not likely for the workers to refer their grievances, especially in dismissal cases, to the Labour Ministry. In the ultimate, it will lead to a situation which the House can imagine - how much industrial unrest it will cause! Mr Speaker, Sir, 1 am sure that that is not the intention of this legislation, and I urge that the most serious consideration be given to the points I have raised.

3.28 p.m.

Mr Seah Mui Kok (Bukit Ho Swee): Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully support the views expressed by the Member for Telok Blangah.

The Employment Act and the Industrial Relations Act were implemented since 1968, which impose several restrictions on the workers, one of which is that employers have the right to promote, to transfer, to reorganise, to dismiss, or to retrench their employees. At that time the workers accepted these restrictions so as to help to create a good climate for investors to come to Singapore, and thereby provide employment for our people. Since 1968 Singapore has been enjoying industrial peace and today we are experiencing an economic boom with full employment. I am proud to say that, with the guidance of the NTUC and various trade union leaders, the workers in Singapore have conducted themselves very well and have maintained the continuity of industrial peace which, of course, helps to preserve the present political and economic stability. The workers and the union leaders have acted in a very intelligent and reasonable way towards the employers when dealing with the various industrial disputes. Unfortunately, some stupid and unreckoned employers mistook our reasonableness to be our weakness.

There is a limit to everything. If employers still continue to take advantage of the labour laws by dismissing and retrenching workers and union leaders and to subtly victimise them so as to weaken the strength and unity of the trade union movement, then I suggest that the employers' right to dismiss and to retrench employees should be taken away from the Employment Act and the Industrial Relations Act. Why should the workers be made to suffer and to sacrifice all the time? Sir, I would like to read part of the editorial from the Labour News of July 1973, published by SILO and PIEU, expressing concern over employers retrenching employees in order to cow the workers from becoming union leaders and to weaken the union. I quote:

`Recent events showed that the hidden sharp point of the instrument of retrenchment is used by employers to get rid of branch committee officials; in a few instances, the retrenchment exercises have knifed off as many as half the total number of branch committee officials. In the first place, such retrenchment exercises are, basically, for the purpose of breaking up the branch committees and to make them impotent. In the second place, they are meant to cow other workers from offering themselves to stand for election or appointment to branch committees; and what is even more serious is the real intention of the employers, and that is, to break the faith and confidence of the rank and file members in the trade union.

We would ask the Labour Ministry and the NTUC to make a close scrutiny of management's rights of retrenchment which, in practice, can camouflage other insidious intentions, and we hope to see positive results ensuing.'

Sir, in view of the fact that some employers are taking advantage of the labour laws against the workers and union leaders by retrenching them so as to weaken the union, I would suggest to the Minister for Labour to deprive the employers of the right to dismiss or retrench their employees. The employers must negotiate with the union leaders before any dismissal or retrenchment of any employees. In fairness to the workers, I suggest that the Employment Act and the Industrial Relations Act should be amended so that employers have no right to dismiss or retrench any employee unless they negotiate with the union.

3.35 p.m.

Mr Chin Harn Tong (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to comment on three provisions in the Bill to amend the Employment Act. The provisions relate to the amendment of sections 14 and 38 and Parts VIII, IX and X of the Employment Act.

I should like to make it clear right from the very beginning that I am wholly in favour of the proposed amendments. Some of the proposed provisions, however, do not seem to have fully dealt with every aspect of the matters under amendment; and it is with regard to some of these aspects that I wish to seek clarification.

The intention of clause 2 of the Bill, touching upon section 14 of the Employment Act, is apparently to bring the Employment Act into line with the Industrial Relations Act, as the proposed provisions are substantially the same as the corresponding provisions in section 35 of the Industrial Relations Act. I am inclined to agree that there is a need for the proposed provisions. Under Part XVI of the Employment Act, a machinery has been provided for the Commissioner of Labour to inquire into disputes between employers and their employees. But if, in the process of so inquiring, the Commissioner is convinced that an employee has been dismissed without just cause or excuse, the only remedy the Commissioner is empowered to apply to the wrongfully dismissed employee is monetary compensation.

Any sum of money, of course, is useful when a person is out of work but is no compensation for the loss of a steady career, for which he may have already spent half his working life. It is, therefore, only fair and equitable that an employee who has been found to be wrongfully dismissed should be allowed to have his old job back, wherever possible. Reinstatement in employment is, however, a statutory remedy and up to now the Minister has the power to reinstate a person in his former employment only if proceedings for such reinstatement have been initiated through a trade union under the Industrial Relations Act.

In giving my support to the proposal to incorporate into the Employment Act the power of reinstatement by the Minister, I am particularly struck by two aspects of the proposal. One is that any employee who considers himself to be wrongfully dismissed may apply to the Minister for reinstatement regardless of whether or not he is a member of a trade union which has been accorded recognition by the employer. The other is that the Minister may have recourse to the well-tried machinery of the Labour Court for the purpose of ascertaining the facts of any dismissal before making a decision thereon.

It is my humble opinion, however, that the proposed provisions may be strengthened in the interest of employees. I wish to suggest that the proposed section 14 (2) of the Employment Act should have the words "whether with or without notice" to qualify any dismissal in respect of which the Minister may be requested to intervene. It must not be forgotten that under the Employment Act, a notice of not more than two weeks is required for the termination of service of an employee with less than five years' service. An employer would have to be exceedingly foolhardy to refuse to give such two weeks' notice which would free him from any anxiety in relation to the proposed provisions.

The intention of clauses 4 to 18 of the Bill, dealing with Parts VIII and IX of the Employment Act, apparently seeks to strengthen the provisions safeguarding young children from undue exploitation by unscrupulous employers. Of late it has become increasingly noticeable that employers, with bank statements for their conscience, have been engaging children of tender years at a small wage to perform work which is unsuited to their capacity and which taxes their physical strength beyond endurance and reason. For such employers, of course, the attraction of employing children lies in the fact that the children are too young to know better or to be able to fight for a better deal. The savings that can be had by such employers through evading their liabilities under the Employment Act and the Central Provident Fund Act arc tremendous, but they make a mockery of all the statutory provisions enacted or approved by this House for the benefit of workers in general and the protection of young children, in particular. The proposed provisions, therefore, meet an urgent and grave need in that they will be a greater and more effective deterrent against improper employment of young children,

Clause 19 of the Bill, amending the whole of Part X of the Employment Act, seeks to remove a long outstanding anomaly in the statutory provisions governing the terms and conditions of workers in Singapore. I should think that the removal of such an anomaly is long overdue. Up to now only female workmen are statutorily entitled to have paid maternity leave during their confinement, that is, one month before and one month after. On the other hand, other female employees, who are non-workmen, such as clerks, shop assistants, teachers and typists, are not statutorily entitled to one single day's paid maternity leave during their confinement. What has made the situation more tolerable for female employees as a whole is that trade unions have secured paid maternity leave for their members and have incorporated such benefit into a collective agreement, and that enlightened employers such as the Government and the Statutory Board have granted paid maternity leave to their female employees despite the strange omission in the Employment Act. Nonetheless, there is a real need for the proposed amendment as individual female employees, who arc non-workmen engaged by a firm in the private sector without the benefit of representation by a trade union, would otherwise have no cause for complaint if their employers refuse to grant them paid maternity leave.

As for the restriction of paid maternity leave only to female employees with not more than two living children, I agree that such restriction is rational in accordance with the Government's avowed policy or restricting the size of families in Singapore. Since the ideal size of a family has been widely and recently mooted as that consisting of the two parents themselves and their two children, it makes sense not to offer incentives for employees to have more than two children.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to support the Bill.

3.40 p.m.

Mr Teong Eng Siong (in Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the introduction of this amendment Bill is, in my opinion, very timely in the present context of Singapore. These amendments will ensure that our workers will have better care and protection of the law. This is a progressive piece of legislation.

Sir, it cannot be denied that in the past few years industrial relations in Singapore have improved considerably. The number of strikes has been reduced visibly and most, if not all, of the industrial disputes have been referred to the Labour Ministry or the Industrial Arbitration Court for reasonable or peaceful settlement. This is something that is very encouraging.

In this amendment Bill there are also provisions which are favourable to the workers, particularly the female employees. There is a clear-cut provision in the law to ensure that all female employees in Singapore will enjoy equal rights. Of course, I am referring to the maternity leave benefits which will be extended from the female workmen to all female employees. This is only right and proper, because more and more women in entering the labour market are engaged in the factories. According to my estimate, about 30 per cent of the workers in Singapore are female. So it is only reasonable that all female employees should enjoy the same rights and benefits.

Mr Speaker, Sir, several Members of the House have spoken on this Bill. They have touched on the question of wrongful dismissal and the remedy available to workers who are wrongfully dismissed. They have suggested that there should be proper inquiries to ascertain whether a worker has been wrongfully dismissed, and, if so, to ensure that such a worker is reinstated. But it is not easy to find out whether a worker has been wrongfully dismissed or not. In my view the Ministry of Labour, which is now suffering from a shortage of staff, will find it difficult to conduct comprehensive inquiries into such cases. The Ministry of Labour must have adequate staff to ensure that proper inquiries are conducted, before they can submit their report to the Minister. If there is shortage of staff in the Ministry of Labour, delay is inevitable or the inquiry may be inadequate. This may result in the worker who is wrongfully dismissed not being able to enjoy the full protection of the law, and thereby could lose his employment because of such inadequacies. I would therefore like to remind the Minister concerned that more officers should be engaged to conduct these inquiries to ensure effective implementation of the provisions in the Act.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, all the arguments put forward by the Members for Telok Blangah and Bukit Ho Swee had been gone into thoroughly in 1968 when the present Employment Act was passed in this House. Therefore, I do not propose to repeat the arguments put forward by the Government then, as I think the various points of view have been fully aired both inside and outside this Parliament. Suffice it to say, as a result of the passing of the Employment Act in 1968, there has been rapid economic development and we have been able to attract investments to this country and to solve what was at one time regarded as the insoluble problem of unemployment in Singapore. Today, we need to have a favourable climate for economic development. We also need investments as much as in 1968. For these reasons, the Employment Act will have to remain with us for a long time to come.

Although there have been criticisms against the shortcomings of the Employment Act, nevertheless in the overall interest of rapid economic development and in the overall interest of our people, we cannot disband overnight the Employment Act which was introduced in 1968. What we can do is to ensure that the kind of situations brought up by the Members for Telok Blangah and Bukit Ho Swee will be prevented or rectified whenever they occur.

The Member for Telok Blangah has objected to the provision whereby a non-unionised worker can make representation to the Minister for wrongful dismissal. I am rather surprised that the Member for Telok Blangah should adopt such a selfish attitude. I think a non-unionised worker should be entitled -

Mr N. Govindasamy rose -

Mr Speaker: Mr Govindasamy, will you let the Minister explain first?

Mr N. Govindasamy: Sir, I wish to correct the misunderstanding that the Minister has conceived.

Mr Speaker: All right.

Mr N. Govindasamy: Sir, I have never said that all non-unionised workers should be left out of that provision. Perhaps the Minister was not listening. Let me repeat and quote the exact text of what I have said:

`We in the NTUC have in the past always regarded a worker, who is eligible to seek membership in the union but who refrains from joining the union, as a parasite to our society.'

These are the people I want to be kept out; not any employee.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: In other words, Mr Speaker, Sir, he has admitted that there are sections of workers which cannot be unionised, and therefore they need the protection of this provision. For instance, domestic servants and the large number of construction workers, contract workers, and so on. Obviously they need the protection of this provision in the Amendment Act.

Sir, the Member for Telok Blangah has dealt at length with the procedure under the Industrial Relations Act regarding representations of wrongful dismissal. Under the provision of section 35 (2) of the Industrial Relations Act, if an employee considers that he has been dismissed without just cause or excuse by his employer, he may make representation through his union to the Minister for reinstatement. The representation is first referred to the Industrial Relations Section to be dealt with on a conciliation basis, and the employer concerned is asked to furnish in writing the circumstances leading to, and grounds for, the dismissal. If, in this informal preliminary inquiry, a prima facie case is not established by the union, then, of course, such representation will be rejected. But if the informal inquiry reveals that the management is partly in the wrong, then efforts will be made to get the parties through ex parte consultation to settle the case either by reinstatement or by cash compensation. If no settlement is reached by conciliation, the representation will be dealt with either under section 35 (3), whereby the Minister directs the Commissioner for Labour to hold a formal inquiry and to make recommendations to the Minister; or under section 35 (4) where the employer is asked to make written submissions to the Minister to justify his action to dismiss the employee concerned.

Sir, as many of the representations are straightforward, the procedures adopted by the Ministry of Labour have proved to be effective and satisfactory. This is borne out by the following facts. Since 15th August, 1968, 109 representations have been received. Of this number, 24 representations were rejected, 52 were settled by conciliation, 23 were withdrawn by the union, three are currently under consideration, and a total of seven cases were disposed of by Ministerial orders, directing four dismissed employees to be reinstated and three employers to pay compensation to three dismissed employees. A total of three formal inquiries were also held under order of the Minister. It is to he noted that each formal inquiry took no less than two and a half months for hearings to be completed. The current procedure of first dealing with union representation by means of conciliation has, therefore, proved to be both expeditious and satisfactory. This same procedure will be adopted in respect of representations made under the new amended section 14 of the Employment Act.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government does not contemplate amending the relevant sections of the Industrial Relations Act at the moment, nor does it intend to accept the suggestions made by the hon. Members in respect of representations by non-unionised employees for wrongful dismissal. A formal hearing, which is not only time-consuming but also involves the full-time services of a good number of Government officers, should only be resorted to when a prima facie case has been established and when all other conciliatory efforts have failed to settle the issue.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole house.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Mr Ong Pang Boon].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.