UNFAIR DISMISSAL OF WHITE COLLAR WORKERS

Column: 3275

UNFAIR DISMISSAL OF WHITE COLLAR WORKERS: 4.

Mr Arthur Fong asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) how many complaints from white collar workers of unfair dismissal were made to the Ministry's mediation unit each year since 1998; (b) what are the profiles of such companies, such as how many were local companies, small and medium size enterprises, multi-national corporations; and (c) whether he can provide a breakdown of the number of union and non-union workers who have lodged complaints against their employers for each of the years since 1998.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Acting Minister for Manpower (Mr Hawazi Daipi: ) (

for the Acting Minister for Manpower: ): Between 1998 and August 2003, my Ministry received a total of 199 appeals against unfair dismissals by their employers; approximately 30 to 40 appeals each year. The 199 appeals involved 214 employees; of whom, 144 were unionised employees and 70 were not unionised.

25% of the appeals were from MNCs, while 75% were from SMEs and other establishments, such as hospitals, educational institutions and welfare organisations. The majority (59%) of the

Column: 3276

appellants were blue collar workers and 41% were white collar workers.

Mr Arthur Fong (West Coast): What can the Ministry do in cases where companies rehire their workers under a new contract and under a business name and then terminate their services under a new contract in order that companies avoid paying the benefits had they terminated their staff under the previous employment contract signed that would have required them to pay benefits?

Mr Hawazi Daipi: The Ministry will investigate whether it is a fair or unfair dismissal. There are two laws that govern this issue. One is under the Employment Act and the other is under the Industrial Relations Act. Under section 14(2) of the Employment Act and section 35(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, the Ministry will investigate any matter with regard to dismissal and the Minister will have the power to determine whether it is fair or if conciliation fails.

Mdm Halimah Yacob: Sir, two follow-up questions. My first question is this. In the case of dismissals in Singapore, employers do not normally state the reasons why the workers are dismissed and part of the reason is that this is not required by the law. In most cases, in many countries, the law requires employers to state the reasons for the dismissal. So my first question to the Parliametary Secretary is whether the Ministry will consider amending the law to require employers to state the reasons for dismissals. This is important to ensure fairness and equity so that the worker knows why he is being dismissed and to put the employers on notice that dismissals must have merits.

The second question that I want to ask is that the Employment Act excludes from its ambit certain categories of employees, executives and confidential staff and, therefore, they do not have

Column: 3277

recourse to the appeal procedures for wrongful dismissal stipulated under the law. Will the Ministry consider amending the law to allow those who are now presently excluded from making use of this procedure to enable them to do so, because the present recourse of going to the civil court is too expensive and time-consuming?

Mr Hawazi Daipi: Sir, my short answer to the two questions is yes. If it is necessary, we will look into this. But, based on our experience, we find that the current system works, ie, there is recourse for workers to get their grievances heard and we will call both parties, the employers as well as the employees, so that both can be heard, and we try to arbitrate. If it does not work, we will adjudicate and the Minister will determine whether it is a fair dismissal or not and if some form of compensation is required.

Mdm Halimah Yacob: Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary has just said that the Ministry will consider if it is a fair dismissal under the present case. But as I understand it, for those excluded from the ambit of the law, the Minister does not have that power. The question is: will the Ministry consider amending the law in order to enable the Minister to have the power to look into the categories that are presently excluded and also to ensure that there is fairness and equity in the treatment of workers who are wrongfully dismissed? Right now, there is no need for the employers to provide any reason whatsoever.

Mr Hawazi Daipi: Sir, generally, for workers who are covered under the two Acts, even though the employers may not be required to state the reason, our officers at MOM will investigate. If there is reason to believe that the dismissal is being unfairly meted out, the Ministry will

Column: 3278

require the employers to reinstate the employee.

But for workers who are not covered under the law, in future, if there is widespread unfair dismissal amongst these workers, we will take a look at the possibility of amending the law, if necessary.

Mdm Halimah Yacob: Sir, with regard to the first issue, I think it is important that we have in place a system which requires the employers to give reasons when a worker is dismissed because not all cases go to the Ministry, judging from the numbers given. I think the numbers are pretty small. And there are also workers who do not know that they have this recourse. But if employers are told that they have to give reasons, that by itself is a deterrent action. At least, they know that they have to think carefully and they have to justify their dismissals.

I would like to urge the Ministry to seriously consider this request that the law requires employers to give reasons for dismissals.

Mr Hawazi Daipi: Thank you very much for the suggestion. But from the figures that I gave earlier - out of 199 cases, 129 are union members and 70 are non-union members - it appears that our workers are quite well-informed about their rights. If necessary, we can launch a public education campaign about workers' rights and the unions can of course help in this matter.

But, generally, Sir, we find that workers understand their rights and, based on our experience, some appeals had been settled through conciliation. Let me give some figures. Out of 199 cases referred to MOM from 1998 to August 2003, 182 cases were settled. 92 appeals were settled through conciliation, 53 appeals were withdrawn, 7 appeals were upheld, and 30 appeals were

Column: 3279

rejected by the Minister. So what I am trying to say here, Sir, is that the process allows workers to raise their grievances. We will hear them, we will try to conciliate and, as the figures bear out, we find that the majority of the cases were settled amicably through conciliation.

Ms Indranee Rajah (Tanjong Pagar: ): If employers were required to give reasons that would act as a deterrent to termination of employment, would the Parliamentary Secretary care to comment how that would affect our workforce's flexibility and ability to respond to the vagaries of economic conditions?

Mr Hawazi Daipi: Sir, I do not know how to comment on this kind of suggestion. Yes, there will be changes. As there have been changes in employment in Singapore, there will be a lot of workers who will be on contract and there will also be a lot of workers who are working part-time. So the nature of employment in Singapore has changed. We acknowledge that. What I am trying to say is that despite these changes, so far, the system has worked. If there is a need to look at the system to serve our workers better, we will have to look at it.