DISCRIMINATION AGAINST EXPECTANT WOMEN EMPLOYEES

Column: 37

DISCRIMINATION AGAINST EXPECTANT WOMEN EMPLOYEES: 18.

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan asked the Minister for Manpower (a) if there are cases of alleged discrimination against pregnant women employees that have been lodged with the Ministry; (b) if so, how many cases were lodged for each of the years from 2002-2004 and the first three months of 2005; (c) how many of these cases were proven; (d) what recourse did these employees have and what penalties were imposed on the employers who were found to have practised discrimination; and (e) how can non-unionised women employees be protected against such discrimination, should it exist. ****

Dr Ng Eng Hen: Mr Speaker, Sir, from 1st October last year, Members will remember that maternity leave benefit for working mothers was extended from 8 to 12 weeks. Subsequent amendments were made to the Children Development Co-Savings Act and the Employment Act. Under these two Acts, female employees, regardless of their position in the company, are entitled to this benefit.

Under both Acts, it is an offence for an employer to dismiss a female employee

Column: 38

during her maternity leave period. If found guilty, the employer can be fined up to $1,000 or imprisoned for up to six months or both. An employee who has been dismissed within the three months before her delivery has a right of appeal to the Minister for Manpower. The Minister has the power to order reinstatement, or make an award for compensation. Any employee who feels that she has been unlawfully dismissed should write to MOM, which will investigate the complaint, and take necessary action.

For 2002 and 2003, MOM received an average of 20 maternity-related complaints each year. The complaints increased to 36 last year, and were related to termination of the employee's services, questions on eligibility to entitlements or under payment of maternity benefits.

In the first three months of 2005, we received 20 complaints. In other words, there has been an increase since we moved on to the new maternity leave benefits. Indeed, this increase was anticipated. We expected this increase because we enhanced the benefit as well as the accompanying heightened publicity to raise public awareness about the protection provided for under the new law.

From investigations into past cases, we found that some employers were unclear of their obligations. For these, MOM has intervened and advised them to pay the female employee what is due to her. Most employers usually make immediate rectification upon our advice. We have also encountered cases when the employer does not communicate performance problems to the employee in a clear manner. This could cause the employee to surmise that the cause of her dismissal was due to her pregnancy rather than her performance. Hence, in these cases, we have advised employers in such

Column: 39

cases to review their performance management practices accordingly.

The majority of employers are reasonable and would not want to lose a valued employee, even if she is pregnant. However, MOM recognises that some concerns of discrimination at the workplace are valid. MOM reiterates that the law protects the rights of the pregnant employees to work and to take maternity leave. We will step up efforts, together with unions and employer organisations, to disseminate information on the legal rights of pregnant employees to companies. Unionised employees who feel that they have been discriminated against can take up their complaints through their unions or directly to my Ministry. Non-unionised employees can lodge a complaint directly with MOM. And, as I said, we will investigate the complaint and take appropriate action against the employer, if the law has been violated.

The extended maternity leave is a newly introduced policy as part of the package of marriage and parenthood measures. We recognise the operational challenges to organisations from these enhanced benefits. This is why MOM set up the Work Life Works scheme (WOW), to help companies adjust their HR policies and processes. Private sector and non-profit organisations can receive up to 70% funding, subject to a cap of $30,000 for each organisation. This fund can be used to defray the costs of training, implementation, staff time and consultancy in developing a work-life strategy to promote marriage and procreation. We will continue to work hard to help employers adopt an enlightened approach in dealing with their pregnant employees. There are many positive examples of successful organisations which can remain competitive despite having pro-family policies.

Column: 40

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Sir, I would like to ask the Minister, whilst the number of complaints has risen, whether there were actually any cases where the employers were found to have been guilty and, therefore, penalised for discrimination. And, if there were, how many were there?

The other question I would like to ask the Minister is that the Minister said that pregnant employees who were actually terminated within three months of delivery could appeal to MOM for compensation or recourse. What about employees who were actually terminated way before the three months of delivery? Are they also covered?

Dr Ng Eng Hen: We have no cases, after investigations, where we had to bring the employers to court. As I have said, many of them who have clearly violated the prescribed benefits recognised the errors of their ways and made restitution. We are quite persuasive in that regard.

What happens to female employees who are terminated a day before and, indeed, even within the three months' period, where employers imputed the dismissal not to the pregnancy, but to their performance? I think it is a grey area and I recognise that the law protects them up to three months before delivery. In many other countries, the protection can vary. I think it would be difficult for the law to hardwire such that protection is fool-proof. In this regard, I think we have to approach this problem from a number of ways. One is the legal protection, where it is clearly violating. I think we would have to take measures. But I take that could bring us to a certain point. We would also need to work very hard in terms of facilitating enlightened employers' attitude. And from the companies that we see, there is no shortage of companies in Singapore who could

Column: 41

recognise that someone, regardless of his condition, whether she is a female, whether he is elderly, whether he has got particular aspects not attributable to his work performance, that there is no discrimination.

So I accept the Member's view that there may be grey areas. For those that are clear-cut, we will take action, but I take that we would also need to engage the other fronts, which is why we set up the WOW fund, which is why we continue to promote

good employers, which is why we continue to engage with employers to change their HR policies and processes.

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Sir, while I accept and agree with the Minister that most employers are actually enlightened and do not practise discrimination, I would like to ask the Minister whether the Ministry could actually monitor and consider amending the legislation, if such cases of complaints against perceived discrimination continue or are on the rise, and particularly for pregnant employees or as soon as they are pregnant, that employers should bear the responsibility and not fire them. Because it seems that there are so many employers who are enlightened and usually do not practise such discrimination, then I think that it would not be too burdensome to actually impose such a requirement.

Dr Ng Eng Hen: The short answer is, yes, we will monitor this and take the necessary action. But let me put this in perspective. We received 20 maternity cases in the first three months of 2005, and an average of 20 maternity-related cases each year in 2002 and 2003, out of our female workforce and pregnant workforce. I assume it is not a large problem. It is increasing, slightly more of this in the first quarter. Let me monitor the figures. There are few obviously very

Column: 42

errant employers and we will teach them the wickedness of their ways. But I think that the greater challenge is to help our womenfolk who want to balance family, not during pregnancy but after pregnancy, to be able to fulfil both their roles and responsibilities within the workplace and at home. I think that is the bigger challenge.

Mdm Halimah Yacob: Sir, I think the instances of discrimination do not only involve situations where a pregnant female employee is terminated or dismissed. But it could involve other forms of discrimination as well, in terms of how they are treated at work, in terms of access to opportunities and other areas. So, this actually requires a need to look at having proper effective human resource practices and policies at work pertaining to the employment and retention of pregnant female employees. Would MOM also care to look into that as well and not just the issue of dismissal?

Dr Ng Eng Hen: Sir, I completely agree with Mdm Halimah on that point What she is saying is that there can be forms of discrimination which you cannot protect against and yet still occur in the workplace. In other words, you do not give equal opportunities to someone because she is pregnant, or you do not give opportunities to someone because of the colour of the skin, gender, etc.

As I said, this is a larger problem. We will have to continue to work at it. I think the business case to argue for most employers is that it does not make sense to do so, because they can get the most out of their employees. We will continue to promote good HR policies, to allow iconic CEOs to portray them, to publicise their efforts, so that others will follow. These facilitation measures are quite serious, and that is why I set up a fund to help companies change.