Employers should not adopt unfair practices and dismiss workers for no good reason. Other legal issues abound: Does workplace compensation kick in when one works from home?
By Patrick Tay Teck Guan, Published The Straits Times, 30 May 2020
You may have heard some of the horror stories.
Out of the blue, an employee receives an e-mail from her employer, informing her that she will be required to work for only two days a week and her salary will be reduced. In this case, neither consultation was sought, nor consent given.
Or how about the employee who has always performed above satisfaction at work - only to be dismissed without notice due to "poor performance".
In its recent monetary policy statement, the Monetary Authority of Singapore warned that "the COVID-19 pandemic has led to a severe contraction in economic activity both in Singapore and globally".
As a result, many businesses have been disrupted - some had to shutter for good, others had to fundamentally rethink their business model, and some had to cut labour costs to sustain their businesses.
What does this mean, especially for employees during COVID-19? What are some issues workers should watch out for during such a volatile employment period?
UNFAIR DISMISSALS AND REDUCED HOURS
There is a danger that companies going through rough patches will use unfair practices to reduce work hours or even to get rid of workers. These are some common practices:
First, in coping with operational costs, employers may resort to adjusting employees' working hours and salaries.
However, this must be mutually agreed upon between both employer and employee. Taking the example that was cited at the onset, employers should not unilaterally make changes to employment terms and conditions without the employee's consent.
This is included in the guidelines set out in the advisory on salary and leave arrangements during circuit breaker. Any employer that needs to implement such changes during this period should do so only after having consulted the union (if the company is unionised) and/or its employees, and sought and obtained their consent. Agreed changes should then be clearly documented and acknowledged by both parties.
Second, another tell-tale sign when employers are trying to get rid of employees is when employees who are doing the same job are suddenly given poor performance ratings, when they have always been graded well.
Employers cannot dismiss employees without notice for poor performance. If doing so, the onus is also on the employer to provide evidence of the poor performance.
Third, another modus operandi that may be used by employers is to intentionally exclude an employee from meetings and remove the employee's responsibilities, materially changing the employee's original job scope. Often, in such instances, the employee often feels isolated and will resign as a result.
Fourth, retrenchments can be disguised.
Under case law and tripartite guidelines, retrenchment happens when an employee's contract of service is terminated by the employer due to redundancy or any reorganisation of the employer's profession, business, trade or work.
In a bid to prevent companies from looking to retrenchment as the first resort, the Government has rolled out extensive support measures through the Unity, Resilience, Solidarity and Fortitude Budgets.
The Jobs Support Scheme (JSS) pays a substantial portion of workers' wages for several months, thus helping companies with cash flow, ensuring that they consider retrenching workers only when other options are exhausted.
Should a company have to retrench workers, retrenchment benefits should be paid in accordance with the employment contract or collective agreement; if there is no such prior agreement, tripartite advisories state that the quantum of retrenchment benefits should range from two weeks to one month's salary per year of service.
The recent advisory on retrenchment benefits further outlines how companies should provide fair retrenchment benefits to retrenched workers, and how they should go about ensuring "fair retrenchment", for example, in the selection of employees for retrenchments, early consultation with unions, early and open communication and employment facilitation for employees.
However, I know of workers who have encountered instances where employers, in a bid to "cut costs", disguise the retrenchment as a mere "contractual termination" of employment so that they only need to serve notice and give notice pay, to avoid paying the employee a fair retrenchment package. Many times, it has come to light that the very same position had actually been made redundant, and the employee who was given notice had been robbed of what should have been rightfully paid out to him or her, in the form of a retrenchment package.
It is an unfortunate reality that the prolonged period of business closure due to the ongoing pandemic means more companies will be tempted to take this route of disguised retrenchment.
Sadly, some employers get away with it, perhaps because workers are not aware of their rights, or fear to take action. To make it foolproof, some employers even provide notice pay and do not give any reasons for the contractual termination so as not to be challenged, especially in a non-unionised environment.
The question then is this: What more can be done to better protect, assist and support workers, especially our professionals, managers and executives who face contractual termination or disguised retrenchments?
By Patrick Tay Teck Guan, Published The Straits Times, 30 May 2020
You may have heard some of the horror stories.
Out of the blue, an employee receives an e-mail from her employer, informing her that she will be required to work for only two days a week and her salary will be reduced. In this case, neither consultation was sought, nor consent given.
Or how about the employee who has always performed above satisfaction at work - only to be dismissed without notice due to "poor performance".
In its recent monetary policy statement, the Monetary Authority of Singapore warned that "the COVID-19 pandemic has led to a severe contraction in economic activity both in Singapore and globally".
As a result, many businesses have been disrupted - some had to shutter for good, others had to fundamentally rethink their business model, and some had to cut labour costs to sustain their businesses.
What does this mean, especially for employees during COVID-19? What are some issues workers should watch out for during such a volatile employment period?
UNFAIR DISMISSALS AND REDUCED HOURS
There is a danger that companies going through rough patches will use unfair practices to reduce work hours or even to get rid of workers. These are some common practices:
First, in coping with operational costs, employers may resort to adjusting employees' working hours and salaries.
However, this must be mutually agreed upon between both employer and employee. Taking the example that was cited at the onset, employers should not unilaterally make changes to employment terms and conditions without the employee's consent.
This is included in the guidelines set out in the advisory on salary and leave arrangements during circuit breaker. Any employer that needs to implement such changes during this period should do so only after having consulted the union (if the company is unionised) and/or its employees, and sought and obtained their consent. Agreed changes should then be clearly documented and acknowledged by both parties.
Second, another tell-tale sign when employers are trying to get rid of employees is when employees who are doing the same job are suddenly given poor performance ratings, when they have always been graded well.
Employers cannot dismiss employees without notice for poor performance. If doing so, the onus is also on the employer to provide evidence of the poor performance.
Third, another modus operandi that may be used by employers is to intentionally exclude an employee from meetings and remove the employee's responsibilities, materially changing the employee's original job scope. Often, in such instances, the employee often feels isolated and will resign as a result.
Fourth, retrenchments can be disguised.
Under case law and tripartite guidelines, retrenchment happens when an employee's contract of service is terminated by the employer due to redundancy or any reorganisation of the employer's profession, business, trade or work.
In a bid to prevent companies from looking to retrenchment as the first resort, the Government has rolled out extensive support measures through the Unity, Resilience, Solidarity and Fortitude Budgets.
The Jobs Support Scheme (JSS) pays a substantial portion of workers' wages for several months, thus helping companies with cash flow, ensuring that they consider retrenching workers only when other options are exhausted.
Should a company have to retrench workers, retrenchment benefits should be paid in accordance with the employment contract or collective agreement; if there is no such prior agreement, tripartite advisories state that the quantum of retrenchment benefits should range from two weeks to one month's salary per year of service.
The recent advisory on retrenchment benefits further outlines how companies should provide fair retrenchment benefits to retrenched workers, and how they should go about ensuring "fair retrenchment", for example, in the selection of employees for retrenchments, early consultation with unions, early and open communication and employment facilitation for employees.
However, I know of workers who have encountered instances where employers, in a bid to "cut costs", disguise the retrenchment as a mere "contractual termination" of employment so that they only need to serve notice and give notice pay, to avoid paying the employee a fair retrenchment package. Many times, it has come to light that the very same position had actually been made redundant, and the employee who was given notice had been robbed of what should have been rightfully paid out to him or her, in the form of a retrenchment package.
It is an unfortunate reality that the prolonged period of business closure due to the ongoing pandemic means more companies will be tempted to take this route of disguised retrenchment.
Sadly, some employers get away with it, perhaps because workers are not aware of their rights, or fear to take action. To make it foolproof, some employers even provide notice pay and do not give any reasons for the contractual termination so as not to be challenged, especially in a non-unionised environment.
The question then is this: What more can be done to better protect, assist and support workers, especially our professionals, managers and executives who face contractual termination or disguised retrenchments?