SINGAPORE — Although layoffs have spiked, Manpower Minister Lim Swee Say (picture) told Parliament on Monday (Nov 7) that there is no clear evidence that irresponsible retrenchment practices are on the rise.
The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) received 63 retrenchment-related cases in the first nine months of this year, with 14 of them being appeals by workers who were dismissed but felt they had been laid off and were due retrenchment benefits.
In comparison, the whole of last year involved 94 such cases, of which 15 were appeals.
But all but one of these 29 appeals were not entitled to retrenchment benefits, Mr Lim said.
This was because these workers had either worked in their companies for less than two years, or did not have retrenchment benefits spelt out in their employment contracts or in the collective agreements between their firms and unions, he added. In the last case, the MOM is helping the worker to resolve the issue.
“On the whole, these cases account for a small proportion of the total number of local employees retrenched in 2015 and 2016 so far,” Mr Lim said, in response to questions from Members of Parliament Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade GRC) and Tan Wu Meng (Jurong GRC).
More than 9,500 people were laid off from their jobs in the first six months of this year, the highest since 2009. The number of layoffs last year was 15,580.
Retrenchment benefits are not mandatory under the law unless they are provided for in employment contracts or collective agreements.
The Tripartite Guidelines on Managing Excess Manpower and Responsible Retrenchment say retrenchment benefits should be given to workers who have been with the firm for at least two years before they are laid off. Those who do not qualify could be given an ex-gratia payment, the guidelines state.
The MPs’ questions came after the labour movement expressed concern about disguised retrenchments, and urged the Government to pay greater attention to the issue to better protect vulnerable workers.
Last month, TODAY reported some examples of how firms disguised layoffs to avoid paying retrenchment benefits, as shared by Mr Patrick Tay, who is the National Trades Union Congress’ assistant secretary general.
For instance, employers would terminate contracts at one month’s notice, citing that they were shedding headcount. Or workers would be asked to resign voluntarily when firms wade into troubled times, with their employers saying that getting terminated “doesn’t look good on you”.
Yesterday, Mr Lim told the House that the authorities have organised job fairs for retrenched workers. Nearly 2,000 of the 3,300 or so retrenched workers who sought help in the first nine months of the year have secured jobs, he added.
Dr Tan asked whether the MOM would continue keeping tabs on changing employment norms, especially with new trends such as the gig economy, where independent workers on short-term contracts abound.
Mr Lim responded that the ministry would, as part of an ongoing survey on changes in the employment landscape, gather more information on workers who are part of the gig economy, including the self-employed.
If such “portfolio” workers without an “employer-employee relationship” rise in numbers, the MOM would be concerned about their welfare, including skills upgrading and retirement planning. The ministry will decide on its next step based on the survey findings, he added.
