Skip to main content

Agencies did their best to help sacked employee

  •  The Straits Times (9 August 2018): Clearing three points behind sacking case

Agencies did their best to help sacked employee
- The Straits Times, 18 August 2018

  1. We wish to clarify Mr Lim Chia Yeo’s misunderstandings about the handling of his appeal (“Clearing three points behind sacking case”, 9 Aug).
  2. On 14 Feb 2018, Mr Lim filed an appeal with the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) against unfair dismissal by his employer. He was concerned that the termination and short stint at the company would adversely affect his resume and future employment opportunities.
  3. The case was referred to the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM). The mediator conveyed Mr Lim’s request to convert his termination to resignation to his former employer but was rejected. At Mr Lim’s insistence, his case was referred to MOM for a formal inquiry into the unfair dismissal allegation.
  4. In his email to the Ministry on 12 Apr 2018, Mr Lim clarified that he was seeking a reinstatement into his position so that he could then resign on his own accord. However, the basis of such reinstatement must be evidence of unfair dismissal. We uncovered no such evidence and cannot, under such circumstances, forcibly order Mr Lim’s former employer to accede to his wishes.
  5. Contrary to Mr Lim’s claim that he only learnt of his “unsatisfactory performance” through MOM’s Forum letter, Mr Lim himself had cited, in his appeal, performance-related issues with his employer.
  6. MOM and TADM officers have done our best to help Mr Lim. We have also offered to refer him to the Employment and Employability Institute (e2i) for employment facilitation. We wish him well in his future endeavours.  

Then Yee Thoong
Divisional Director
Labour Relations and Workplaces Division
Ministry of Manpower

Roslyn Ten
General Manager
Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices

Felix Ong
General Manager
Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management  

 Clearing three points behind sacking case
- The Straits Times, 9 August 2018

  1. The letter by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices and Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management misrepresented three facts about my case (Sacked employee who appealed given fair hearing; Forum Online, Aug 4).
  2. My only intention of going to the MOM was to convert my termination into a case of resignation.
  3. This was communicated clearly to the MOM in writing on Feb 23, which was before the March 5 date cited in the letter.
  4. Second, the allegation I raised on June 18 was not new. It was a piece of evidence supporting an allegation that had been made at the outset.
  5. The third statement regarding my acceptance of payment but filing an unfair dismissal appeal is a misrepresentation.
  6. I accepted the conditions of termination under duress. And I had exhausted all internal channels in requesting a resignation before turning to the MOM.
  7. I have been asking my former employer for the reason behind my sudden termination. To date, they have not got back to me.
  8. The Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management officer who mediated in my case also shared with me that my former employer refused to disclose the reason to him.
  9. I learnt of my "unsatisfactory performance" only through The Straits Times' Forum Online.
  10. To put things in perspective, I had not got a single warning letter. Neither was I placed on any performance improvement plan.
  11. Moreover, there was no formal conversation about my "unsatisfactory" performance. I was fired before the formal performance appraisal took place.
  12. The only formal performance appraisal I had was my probation review in which I was given an early confirmation because of my good performance.
  13. When I was denied the option to resign, my former employer told me that they would provide me a testimonial. The claim of "unsatisfactory" performance does not seem congruent with the willingness for a testimonial that is given to employees who have performed well.
  14. The new allegation raised on March 13 is with regard to religion which is of a sensitive nature. My witness for this allegation does not wish to come forward. Hence, I was hesitant about raising this.
  15. It is the Government's prerogative to decide on the time needed to process a case. It is also within the Government's purview to ensure that facts are correctly represented.