EMPLOYMENT ACT (Protection against dismissals)

Mr Liew Kok Pun asked the Minister for Communications and Minister for Labour (a) whether he is satisfied that the present Employment Act gives sufficient protection to a worker with respect to his tenure of appointment; (b) whether he is aware that there are certain sections of the Act that leave workers completely at the mercy of the employer; and (c) whether he thinks it is necessary to have a law against unfair dismissal.

The Minister for Communications and Minister for Labour (Mr Ong Teng Cheong): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Employment Act provides adequate protection for employees against unfair termination or dismissal. Employees who feel that they have been terminated or dismissed without just cause or excuse can appeal to the Minister for redress. If the Minister is satisfied that the dismissal has been made without just cause or excuse, the employer will be ordered either to reinstate the employee or to pay compensation. The maximum penalty on the employer for not heeding the Minister's order for reinstatement or compensation is a $5,000 fine or imprisonment up to 12 months, or both.

The rights and obligations of employees and employers are clearly spelt out in the Act. Since its promulgation, the Act has been operating smoothly in safeguarding the interest and welfare of employees.

Over the past five years a total of 141 appeals against dismissal were received. In 87 of these cases, our investigations confirmed that the dismissals were justified.

In 10 cases, however, the Ministry ruled that the dismissals were wrongful.In some of these instances, the dismissals were carried out without a proper inquiry or without grounds to substantiate the charge. Reinstatement of the dismissed workers was ordered by the Minister in five cases and compensation was paid out in the other five cases. The remaining 44 cases were amicably settled through conciliation at the Ministry. In the majority of these cases, during conciliation the dismissed workers accepted the dismissal and the employers also agreed to grant compensation as both parties were found to be partially wrong in their actions. From these figures, it is clear that employers generally have not abused their rights in terminating or dismissing employees. It is, therefore, unnecessary to modify the current law governing dismissal.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, a supplementary question. The appeal to the Minister only lies in the case of a dismissal of a worker for misconduct. Is there any protection for the worker who has put in, say, 15 or 20 years of service and he is then suddenly told, "Your services are no longer required. Here are four weeks' wages. Goodbye."?

Mr Ong Teng Cheong: Mr Speaker, Sir, there are some employers who, instead of conducting an inquiry into the employees' misconduct and to avoid appeals against dismissal, as mentioned by the Member for Anson, choose the easy way out by terminating the services of such employees in accordance with section 10 of the Act, that is, giving them the appropriate notice to terminate their services. There are other employers who also terminate the services of their employees without valid reasons or to save costs. The affected employees have no recourse to appeal for reinstatement on the grounds of unfair termination, as the termination is in accordance with the law.

However, although the Employment Act does not empower the Minister to inquire into termination cases, my Ministry has investigated cases of unjust termination which are brought to our attention. That has been done in the past. The figure of 141 appeals, which I quoted earlier on, includes such cases.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, is the Minister aware that the Act provides that before a worker can be dismissed for misconduct, there should be an inquiry? Is the Minister aware that by a decision of the Court of Appeal in Singapore it has been held that there need be no inquiry held before a worker is dismissed? Will the Minister consider taking steps to amend the legislation to put that right?

Mr Ong Teng Cheong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not see the point raised by the Member for Anson about the Court of Appeal. We are talking about the Employment Act. The Employment Act provides that there must be just cause for dismissal of employees by the employers and there must be proper inquiry conducted by the employers. If not, there is always recourse for the employees to refer the matter to the Ministry of Labour and the Labour officers will then carry out an investigation.

Mr Ho See Beng (Khe Bong): Mr Speaker, Sir, my supplementary question is this. In my experience as a trade unionist, I have come across many cases of dismissal, and when these cases are referred to the Ministry of Labour for conciliation, the Ministry has been able to conciliate these cases very amicably. Can the Minister confirm whether there has been any case handled by the conciliation officers which has proved to be unjust to the workers?

Mr Ong Teng Cheong: Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer is no. When a matter is referred to the Ministry of Labour, it will be handled by a senior Labour officer. A thorough investigation will be carried out and a report or recommendation will be submitted to the Minister, through the Director of Labour Relations, then to the Deputy Secretary and then to the Permanent Secretary. So the inquiry is made at various levels of the investigation in the Ministry to ensure that the appeals are thoroughly looked into.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, perhaps I did not make myself clear to the Minister. The point I am making is this. The Act at the moment requires an employer to hold an inquiry before he dismisses him for misconduct. There is a decision of a Court of Appeal which says that that is not necessary, that an employer can dismiss a man without an inquiry, and the remedy merely is, for the man to take the employer to court in an action for wrongful dismissal and recover four weeks' wages.

Mr Ong Teng Cheong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the point raised by the Member for Anson is irrelevant. That is a Court of Appeal. We are talking about the Ministry of Labour. I am not going to make a judgment on the wisdom of the Appeal Judges. The choice rests with the employee, whether he wants to refer the case to the Court under the common law or refer it to the Ministry of Labour for an appeal. We are talking about the Labour Ministry.