Surbana chided for public labelling laid-off workers
I refer to the article “Surbana chided for publicly labelling laid-off workers as poor performers” (Straits Times, Feb 8).
“Must be able to substantiate their claim of poor performance”?
It states that “Mr Lim said employers must be able to substantiate their claim of poor performance.
They should use relevant and objective criteria, which all employees must know of, and must also keep records of performance.
Termination is unlawful if an employer is unable to show documented evidence.
The employer may be ordered to reinstate the employee, or to provide compensation, Mr Lim said.
Consult unions?
He urged employers to consult unions which the employees are a part of.
He said there is no need for employees to access their employer’s evidence if they feel they have been unfairly fired.
Just file an appeal with MOM?
They need only to file an appeal with MOM, which will then look into the matter.
200 appeals in a year?
Mr Lim said MOM receives more than 200 such appeals a year, most of which are resolved through mediation.
Inquiries for only 15% of cases a year?
Inquiries are held for about 30 cases a year.
Only 5% get compensation?
On average, employers are ordered to compensate employees in about 10 cases every year” – does it mean that about 170 or 85 per cent (170 divided by 200) were not subject to any inquiry, and only 10 or about 5 per cent (10 divided by 200) received compensation?
Ex gratia payment – how much?
As to “In the case of Surbana, the management and unions have reached a settlement, and will give the affected workers an ex gratia payment” – how much is the ex gratia payment?
Self-contradiction within the same breath?
In this regard, the Minister may seem to have contradicted himself in the same breath as “(he) said employers must be able to substantiate their claim of poor performance.
They should use relevant and objective criteria, which all employees must know of, and must also keep records of performance.
Termination is unlawful if an employer is unable to show documented evidence.
The employer may be ordered to reinstate the employee, or to provide compensation, Mr Lim said”.
So, why only an undisclosed ex gratia payment to the affected 54 employees?
Shouldn’t it be as he said “may be ordered to reinstate the employee, or to provide compensation”, “termination is unlawful if an employer is unable to show documented evidence”, “should use relevant and objective criteria, which all employees must know of, and must also keep records of performance”, “must be able to substantiate their claim of poor performance”?
Leong Sze Hian
