The worst of the recession may be over, but technician Ellence Chua is still smarting over the treatment by his former employer of 12 years.
He was offered a week's retrenchment benefits for each year of service, below the norm of a month.
He was also told to sign a letter not to get representation from his union - which could have negotiated better terms.
'They said if I sign the letter, I get the cheque,' said Mr Chua, 56, who refused to do so, even though three colleagues did.
'We should get more in benefits. We've been loyal to the company for many years,' said the man who eventually depended on the union to negotiate better terms.
The construction firm's actions were among the bad practices encountered by unionists as the economy slid into recession in the second quarter of last year. Other bosses have docked wages without taking the lead themselves, or sacked staff to avoid paying retrenchment benefits, said the director of industrial relations at the National Trades Union Congress, Ms Cham Hui Fong.
Her department has been handling more cases related to company restructuring - 122 in the first half of this year, up from 24 in the same period last year.
In companies whose workers are not represented by unions, some did not give any retrenchment payout while others cut wages and benefits without consulting the staff, said NTUC deputy secretary-general Halimah Yacob.
While unionists say nasty bosses are a minority, they represent only those cases where the affected workers have sought help from the unions, NTUC or the Manpower Ministry.
The Sunday Times talks to unionists about some of the dirty tricks among bosses:
1 The stop-union boss
When construction firm Sembawang Engineers and Constructors laid off workers like Mr Chua in July last year, it astonished unionists by trying to keep them out of negotiations.
The Indian-owned builder of Singapore's MRT and LRT stations asked the workers to sign a letter that said: 'I understand that the union is negotiating with the company on this matter.
'Though I am a union member, I am rejecting union's representation. Therefore, I will not accept and will reject any other settlement that may be reached between the company and the union.'
Those who signed it received their retrenchment benefits first. Those who refused were left in limbo until the union and the Manpower Ministry settled the case.
Sembawang's treatment of its workers surfaced at a hearing before the Industrial Arbitration Court on Oct 16, after the company broke off talks on a collective agreement with the Building Construction & Timber Industries Employees' Union.
Its actions prompted Madam Halimah to tell the court: 'This is a serious interference in the affairs of a trade union and a clear instigation of the workers to reject the union.
'It was a clear attempt to undermine our efforts to get a fair deal for the workers.'
After the union and the ministry weighed in, the company raised the retrenchment benefits from one week to two, for each year of service. Mr Chua took home $14,000 and found a similar job in an airline company, earning the same pay.
2 The short-notice, hush-hush boss
DBS Bank's sudden decision last November to cut 900 jobs without consulting its union or considering alternatives led labour chief Lim Swee Say to voice his disappointment publicly that it had retrenched staff as the first resort.
A plastics company tried to 'follow DBS' style' earlier this year, said the president of the Chemical Industries Employees' Union, Mr G. Rajendran. Without informing the union, it gave more than 50 workers a day's notice that they would be laid off.
It gave only one week's retrenchment benefits for each year of service.
Workers called in the union, which got the company to increase the benefits to more than two weeks for each year of service, as well as sponsor a few weeks of training for those affected so that they can find new jobs.
3 The disguised retrenchment boss
Some employers dismissed staff for poor performance to avoid paying retrenchment benefits, even though the case against the worker was 'not so clear-cut', said Madam Halimah.
Such decisions should be based on fair and objective performance appraisals, not 'just on arbitrary word-of-mouth allegations of some supervisors', she added.
One electronics firm let go of five executives, citing under-performance, even though they had not been told previously of any shortcoming or been issued warning letters.
As executives are not covered under a collective agreement, the union appealed to the Manpower Ministry to help them retain their jobs - and succeeded.
Madam Halimah warned: 'Such poor treatment creates serious morale problems and, in the long run, is not in the companies' interest.'
Agreeing, the executive director of the Singapore National Employers Federation, Mr Koh Juan Kiat, said other employees would be concerned over how they would be treated in the future.
Such actions could also damage the company's reputation among new staff and the public, he added.
4. The you-bear-it-all boss
The principle of equal sacrifice when introducing temporary layoffs and other measures to manage excess manpower is spelt out in guidelines drawn up by the Government, employer groups and unions.
But some bosses did not go 50-50 in salary payments, such as a company in the chemical industry that made its workers go on two days' no-pay leave this year.
The workers complained to NTUC, which asked the company to recognise the union - a move allowing the latter to represent the workers - but it refused.
A secret ballot among the workers was called, with 90 per cent voting to form a union. But it still refused to talk to NTUC.
Said Ms Cham: 'They chased our officers out of the premises, saying they never agreed to have a union.'
The issue is still being thrashed out between both parties.
- The Sunday Times
No comments:
Post a Comment