Ex-Manager May Still Make Civil Claim
- The Sunday Times (18 May 2008) : Ex-Manager May Still Make Civil Claim
- The Sunday Times (04 May 2008) : Injury Claims: Ex-Manager Disputes MOM Clarification
Ex-Manager May Still Make Civil Claim
- The Sunday Times, 18 May 2008
Please refer to the letter by Mr Michael Yeo Khee Hiang, “Injury claims: Ex-manager disputes MOM clarification” (The Sunday Times, 4 May 2008).
2. As explained in our earlier reply of 20 April 2008, based on the information provided by Mr Yeo and his ex-employer, Mr Yeo was not covered by the Employment Act as he was employed in a managerial position and his claims therefore did not fall under the Act's purview. Mr Yeo acknowledged this and withdrew his claims at the Ministry's Labour Court inquiry. If Mr Yeo wishes to pursue his case, he may still do so through civil claims.
3. Mr Yeo may wish to contact the Ministry if he requires further clarification.
Injury Claims: Ex-Manager Disputes MOM Clarification
- The Sunday Times, 04 May 2008
I refer to the reply by the Ministry of Manpower, 'MOM details manager's work claims' (The Sunday Times, April 20).
I left my ex-company in 2003 over a contractual dispute regarding benefits and medical entitlements as spelt out in my employment letter (not the Employment Act, as stated in MOM's reply).
After suffering a severe injury on my right elbow at work, I found out that I did not have company insurance cover, although such a cover was stipulated in my employment letter.
My work entailed the survey of building defects, problems, manual work using building tools to access the defects, and preparing a report of my findings.
My employment letter also stated that I was covered under MOM's Workmen's Injury Compensation Act.
As I felt that that I was unjustly treated, I wrote to the MOM for assistance.
An MOM officer assigned to my case issued a letter to me and my ex-employer to ascertain if I was within the purview of the ministry. I was asked: If I was in charge of other employees or had influence in the hiring, firing, promotion, transfer, reward or discipline of other employees; and If I was working in a confidential position, where I had access to classified company or financial information.
The officer was convinced from both replies that I did not have the above duties. That was some time in late 2003.
Then a commissioner convened a meeting with my ex-employer, its insurance company and me over my injury.
The commissioner maintained that despite the manual work that I did, I was not under MOM's purview.
Her advice was that if I wished to appeal against her decision and if it failed, I could not file a civil suit against my ex-employer. Fearing this, I had no option but to withdraw my case from MOM, and did not appeal.
I wrote a letter to the ministry's senior director overseeing my case to let him know my reason for withdrawing.
I totally refute MOM's statement: 'Further investigation and additional information from both Mr Yeo and his employer, that his duties included supervision of projects and also the handling of confidential information, confirmed that he was not covered under the (Employment) Act' - and I have documents to support my grounds.
MOM stated that I rejected my ex-employer's ex gratia payment. I wish to place on record the actual context. In mid-2005, an MOM officer arranged a meeting to settle my claim of $6,303.69.
When my ex-employer disagreed to the sum, the MOM officer suggested that I reduce it to $5,500 - which I did - as he thought my ex-employer would agree to it. However, my exemployer offered only $200. How could I accept such a 'peanut' offer?
A hearing was convened by a commissioner on the same day. I assumed that she would resolve the issue of compensation amount. Instead, I was told that as a manager, I was out of MOM's purview.
Could MOM enlighten me on the rationale for changing the Workmen's Injury Compensation Act to the new Work Injury Compensation Act with effect from April1?
The new Act covers non-manual employees earning more than $1,600 a month. They can claim compensation for work-related injuries arising from accidents on or after April1.
This was precisely what I was emphasising during the two years that MOM was assisting me on my case.