Round-up Speech at Workplace Fairness (Dispute Resolution) Bill

Dr Tan See Leng, Minister for Manpower, Parliament House

1. So, we have heard a wide spectrum of views from Members. There have been calls to make the claims process more supportive and favourable to workers. On the other hand, there are also Members who have expressed the need to strengthen safeguards so that employers are not dragged through claims without merit, to the detriment of workplace harmony and economic progress.
2.  What we can all agree, what we all agreed on, is the need to ensure that workplace discrimination disputes are resolved in an amicable and in an expeditious manner.
3.  This Bill seeks to do that through a careful balance of the interests of the various stakeholders to achieve this objective.
4.  I will now address Members' specific clarifications.
5. Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked whether this Bill signals the Government's intent for workplace discrimination to be addressed through private claims rather than state enforcement. This is not the case – the WFA provides for both and each serves different purposes.
6. This Bill covers the right of individuals who faced workplace discrimination to lodge private claims to obtain redress and closure. The state enforcement framework was part of the first Bill passed in January this year and it empowers the state to adopt a range of penalties against errant employers, such as issuing directions and imposing financial penalties.
7. Mr Saktiandi, Mr Edward Chia, Ms Denise Phua, Mr Shawn Loh, Dr Wan Rizal, Mr Muhaimin Malik and Mr Sharael Taha asked about supporting employers, including SMEs, to put in place grievance handling processes and imposing minimum standards on such processes. The WFA will set baseline requirements such as requiring employers to have a written grievance handling process in place.
8.  Given the diversity of firms, differing HR capabilities and their unique operational considerations, we refrained from being overly prescriptive so that each firm will be able to develop a process which is suited to its needs. TAFEP will support firms with practical resources, such as the Grievance Handling Handbook which will provide sample procedures for employers, including SMEs, to reference. Mr Chia, Ms Mariam Jaafar and Ms Joan Pereira also spoke about empowering workers to raise grievances without fear of retaliation. Mr Dennis Tan asked how work pass holders would be protected from having their work pass cancelled for filing a claim for workplace discrimination.
9. The first Bill prohibits employers from retaliating against those who have raised a workplace grievance, including by cancelling their work passes. Employers who retaliate could be subject to penalties imposed by MOM. To Mr Louis Chua and Ms He Ting Ru's suggestions to allow workers to bypass the mediation and go straight to adjudication in certain circumstances, let me recap the intent of mandatory mediation. Mediation allows parties to have open conversations to arrive at a mutually agreeable outcome, tailored to their respective needs. Litigation leads to a zero-sum outcome where parties either win or lose, and it should always be a last resort. Our mediators are trained to provide a safe space for parties to share their views honestly and support the parties to come to an amicable agreement amongst themselves. That said, under circumstances in new sections 36H(2) and 36K(2) of the Act, certain claims may proceed to adjudication without mediation sessions being conducted.
10. I will move on to address Members' comments on the time bars for mediation requests and claims.
11. Mr Saktiandi sought clarification on how the time bars will work in certain scenarios, and Labour Member of Parliament and NTUC Secretary-General Mr Ng Chee Meng, Mr Louis Chua and Mr Muhaimin Malik called for flexibility in enforcing the time bars when there are exceptional circumstances. Let me recap the intent of the time bars. These time bars represent what tripartite partners agree are reasonable for both employers and employees in different scenarios, including where employers do not give notice of their decisions, but employees have evidence that they were discriminated against. The time bars are designed to encourage timely filing of valid claims before evidence degrades over time, while also providing reassurance to employers that old claims will not be dredged up many years later. At the same time, the time bars also account for extenuating circumstances.  For example, the new section 36E(4) of the WFA is intended to give employees who are dismissed when certified pregnant more time to come forward. MOM also has the discretion to accept late mediation requests and where there are reasonable grounds to do so, such as when the worker is incapacitated or seriously ill. This discretion is broad to accommodate various circumstances, and we do not intend to be prescriptive. We will monitor the implementation of the time bars and we will make adjustments, where necessary.  I should also add that regardless of which time bar is applicable, the worker is still required to provide prima facie evidence of being discriminated against.
12. Mr Saktiandi asked about the duration claimants would have to file their claims to the courts when the dispute cannot be resolved by mediation. This duration will be prescribed in subsidiary legislation, referencing the current duration of four weeks from the issuance of the claim referral certificate for other ECT claims. Members have also sought clarification on the support for workers in the dispute resolution process, including those who are not union members. Let me start with the support for union members. As mentioned by Secretary-General Mr Ng in his speech earlier, union members can turn to NTUC and their unions for support, every step of the way. From the moment a dispute arises, members can turn to unions for assistance, and unions can represent members at mediation and at the ECT hearing. To Mr Muhaimin Malik's question, I wish to clarify that PMEs who are unionised can be represented by their unions in mediation and at the ECT. As we have expanded the ECT's threshold to $250,000 for workplace discrimination claims, this means that even more PMEs can file claims
13.  Next, I move to union members working in companies that are non-unionised. Ms Gho Sze Kee asked why unions cannot represent their members in non-unionised companies in mediation sessions and ECT hearings. To explain, union representation is premised on mutual recognition and trust between the employer and the union. This is why our laws provide for a process of recognition of a union by the employer. Allowing unions to represent workers when they have not been recognised by their employer would undermine this fundamental tenet of tripartism and seed an adversarial relationship between unions and employers, to the detriment of industrial peace and workplace harmony in Singapore.
14.  Notwithstanding this, as mentioned by Mr Ng, NTUC members in non-unionised companies can turn to NTUC's team of industrial relations experts and Tripartite Mediation Advisors for their support and advice on their claims.
15. Last but not least, workers who are not union members. Mr Cai Yinzhou, Mr Shawn Loh, Mr Muhaimin Malik and Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked about the support for this group of workers.
16. As I had mentioned when moving the Bill, TAFEP should be their first port of call when they face workplace discrimination. Such workers can approach TAFEP for advice and assistance. Ms Mariam Jaafar suggested that TAFEP help workers understand their rights and options. I would like to reassure Members that TAFEP will provide advice on the provisions of the WFA, including an initial assessment of their claims and guidance on the WFA claims criteria. TAFEP will also help them with filing the mediation request as the next step of the claim process.
17. And I am glad that Mr Saktiandi Supaat realises how much resourcing we would have to fundamentally provide TAFEP with. I thank him for that support, and I certainly hope that when I put up for next year's budget Committee of Supply, we would get the support of the House.  I believe that in the first Bill, Leader of the Opposition also asked me the same point and I registered that, you know. Thank you very much for that appreciation of TAFEP.  Additionally, we note that vulnerable workers may need additional support, such as persons with disabilities, fresh graduates who may not be familiar with the law and employment norms, and low-wage workers with fewer resources, as Ms Elysa Chen, Mr Muhaimin, Ms Denise Phua and Ms He Ting Ru have pointed out. Mr Saktiandi and Ms Phua suggested having a friend or an independent advocate accompany the worker in the dispute resolution process.
18. I would like to mention that the Judiciary already has a Community Courts and Tribunals Friend Scheme where parties can apply for someone to provide administrative or emotional support during proceedings. Beyond this scheme, we will consider how we can help these vulnerable workers to better navigate the dispute resolution framework. We note Mr Louis Chua's comment on the inherent difficulties for workers to prove workplace discrimination. We have to strike a balance between helping workers seek redress and, at the same time, safeguarding employers from frivolous accusations. So, for this reason, a worker alleging workplace discrimination must support his claim with evidence such as documents or oral accounts. Further, under the ECT's judge-led process, the Court will proactively manage the fact-finding process and can direct the employer to disclose relevant documents or information. Mr Loh has asked about the costs of commencing a workplace discrimination claim. We are still working out the relevant fees for the various stages of the dispute resolution process, but I can share our general approach. Overall, while fees should be kept affordable so that the dispute resolution process is accessible to genuine claimants, they should also reflect the complexity and the efforts needed to resolve higher value claims and deter frivolous claimants and unnecessary inflation of claims.
19. Mr Saktiandi asked why there were claim limits for discriminatory hiring decisions but not for other types of decisions. To clarify, clause 14 of the Bill actually provides MOM with the discretion to set claim limits for all types of workplace discrimination claims in the ECT, including for in- and end-employment claims. To Mr Dennis Tan's question on whether this Bill introduces new heads of claim for damages, such as injury to feelings, emotions, this is not prescribed in the Bill. But I thank Mr Saktiandi and Mr Dennis Tan for their suggestions on quantifying damages arising from discriminatory decisions. We had considered this, and we are still considering it. We will work on it during the implementation. We agree with Mr Saktiandi's observation that reinstatement is often not a practical remedy given that the employment relationship would likely have broken down. From our experience with wrongful dismissal claims, compensation is generally preferred to reinstatement, precisely for that reason. Nonetheless, we have provided for reinstatement as a possible remedy, since we do not preclude the possibility that there could be situations where a claimant may desire reinstatement, and the relationship can still be mended. To Mr Loh's question on how the courts would award costs against the parties, this is a matter for the Judge hearing the claim to decide based on the facts of the case. The Judge may consider factors such as the conduct of the parties during the proceedings and the efforts made by the parties at amicable resolution. Mr Saktiandi, Mr Cai Yinzhou, Ms Gho Sze Kee, Mr Louis Chua and Dr Wan Rizal called for WFA judgments to be published for transparency. I thank them all for the suggestion and would like to assure them that the requirement for hearings to be private does not mean judgments will be kept private. The point they make is an important one, we agree. Making WFA judgments publicly accessible will help employers and workers better understand how the law is applied. We are working with the courts on making ECT judgments publicly accessible and this will include WFA judgments. So, it is a work in progress, we have to work with the Courts.
20. Mr Shawn Loh also highlighted the risk of an individual publicising a claim in social media even while it is being heard by the Courts. Such an act may contravene the sub judice rule, if it risks prejudicing or interfering with the proceedings. Such individuals may be subject to a fine, imprisonment or both. Dr Wan Rizal and Mr Cai Yinzhou spoke about naming errant employers. I would like to assure them that if the state pursues enforcement action against discriminatory employers in Court, the proceedings would be conducted in open Court and accessible to the public. So, the first Bill that we passed was  on state-led enforcement. This is a private claim. Mr Desmond Tan asked whether the ECT's jurisdiction should similarly be expanded for other types of employment disputes. Mr Louis Chua also suggested reviewing the limit for these claims. I do not think we should conflate the dispute resolution process for wrongful dismissal and salary disputes, with workplace discrimination disputes. There is an existing process for wrongful dismissal and salary claims above $30,000 to be pursued in the civil Courts. We are prepared to consider Mr Tan's proposal, and we would have to discuss this further with our tripartite partners, but I seek Mr Desmond Tan's understanding that this is a discussion for another day. Members of the House, let us focus on this Bill, which is to strengthen protections for jobseekers and employees against workplace discrimination.
21. We are working towards the timeline of end-2027 because we recognise the significant scale of the work that lies ahead. As I have shared earlier, extensive groundwork is needed to prepare both employers and workers for the WFA. In response to Mr Edward Chia, Ms Mariam Jaafar, Mr Dennis Tan and Ms Joan Pereira's questions on educating workers on their claims, MOM, NTUC and TAFEP will do their part to inform workers on the WFA, including what constitutes a legitimate claim and the matters that should be raised in such a claim. The handbook that I spoke about earlier would complement these efforts by educating workers on their rights and obligations under the WFA. Equally important is the work to put the infrastructure in place before the WFA comes into force. As Mr Loh and Ms Gho pointed out, the devil is in the implementation. And I think, in addition, Mr Loh talked about the road to hell is paved with good intentions. We have to make sure that we will not go on that road to hell. We will need to make sure we get it right the first time. So, we are developing the necessary systems and processes and ensuring sufficient well-trained personnel to support the mediation and adjudication of workplace discrimination claims. This includes uplifting the capabilities of our mediators and developing the pool of suitably qualified mediators for higher value claims. On Mr Loh, Mr Saktiandi and Mr Chia's comments again on resourcing the agencies implementing the WFA, I want to assure and reassure Members that we will provide them with the necessary resources to do so. Ensuring their readiness to effectively implement the WFA is our top-most priority.
22. We also hear Ms Pereira's call to monitor the implementation of the WFA. Today, MOM conducts regular surveys and reports on fair employment practices, including on discrimination-based dismissals and how they have been resolved. We will extend this work to the implementation of the WFA, and we are studying ways to see how we can augment these monitoring efforts.
23.  Ms Gho Sze Kee and Mr Sharael Taha asked if we plan to include small firms with fewer than 25 employees in the scope of the WFA. As mentioned, when moving the Workplace Fairness Bill in January, small firms may not have the resources or expertise to comprehensively implement the new rules. Hence, we decided to exempt small firms with fewer than 25 employees for a start, and we will work with tripartite partners and TAFEP to ramp up the capabilities of these firms. This exemption will be reviewed five years after the law is implemented.
24. However, to reassure Members, such firms will continue to be subject to the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices (TGFEP), and workers can also approach TAFEP should they encounter workplace discrimination.
25. Mr Cai Yinzhou and Mr Muhaimin Malik also asked for outsourced workers and platform workers to be included in the WFA in the future. I have said it before, a couple of times, we want to take a sure-footed and prudent approach to implement the WFA. Hence, the WFA focuses on protecting workers in employer-employee relationships. Nonetheless, as I had shared in the debate on the Workplace Fairness Bill in January, the TGFEP will be updated to clarify that platform operators and corporate service buyers should not discriminate based on non-job-related characteristics.
26. Mr Speaker, Sir, to conclude, today is a pivotal moment as we pass the second and final Bill of the Workplace Fairness Act. It has been a long journey since the legislation was first announced, I believe, it was during the National Day Rally in 2021. I want to take this opportunity to express our deep appreciation and our gratitude to our tripartite partners, NTUC and SNEF, for journeying hand in hand with us to safeguard fair and harmonious workplaces in Singapore.
27. I also want to thank the various stakeholders who took the time and the effort to contribute to our engagements, including the employers, our HR professionals, our non-governmental organisations, the legal practitioners and members of the public. I want to thank Members, both from the past, in January, the past term of Government to the current term of Government, for the suggestions raised, and many of which are also ongoing in discussions with tripartite partners. But I want to also be clear and like I said, sure-footed, and I also want to humbly put this across to everyone in the House that while this legislation is a new landmark in our journey towards a fair workplace, it is not the end of the journey. In fact, it is not even the beginning of the end, but the end of a beginning. I said before that we have only just begun. The real work starts now, with all of you supporting, as we turn our attention now to the task of implementation.
28.  As I shared earlier, efforts are already underway. These will continue once the Bill is passed so that when the WFA comes into force at the end of 2027, employers will fully understand their duties and workers will clearly know their rights. I invite everyone to continue working with us towards this goal.
29.  I would like to end with a Chinese proverb from Laozi and a Malay pantun.
30.  "合抱之木，生于毫末；九层之台，起于累土；千里之行，始于足下." It means, a tree that can be embraced grows from a tiny sprout. The nine-storey tower rises from a mound of earth. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
31.  "Bunga cempaka harum mewangi, Disiram embun di waktu pagi. Adil saksama asas harmoni, Tempat kerja makmur dan berseri." Just as cempaka flower flourishes with the morning dew, a workplace thrives when fairness and equality are upheld. Justice ensures trust and respect, nurturing harmony and productivity amongst all employees.
32. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.