Mr Deputy Speaker
Following this House’s legislating against workplace discrimination earlier this year, the Bill before us provides clear steps for aggrieved employees to seek recourse against errant employers who have wronged them, and I support the Bill.
However, I would like to raise several issues that we should carefully consider to ensure that the path to justice is kept accessible to all workers.
First, there usually exists a great imbalance between the employer and employee when it comes to employment disputes. While it is encouraging that both parties cannot have external legal representatives before the Employment Claims Tribunal, this may not be sufficient to level the playing field, especially as some employers may have legally trained in-house legal teams who would be appointed to represent the company.
Will the Minister consider setting up a specialised office to provide legal information and advice to aggrieved workers who require assistance in filing their claims? In this regard, I note that there appears to be no legal clinic focused on workers’ rights or employment law. Notably, while the NTUC runs a LawWorks legal clinic for union members, the Pro Bono SG website appears to state that this legal clinic excludes employment issues.
The Ministry should also continuously work with civil society and community organisations to ensure that workers are empowered to obtain justice under the Workplace Fairness Act through initiatives like education and awareness campaigns, the development of guidance materials and pro bono referral schemes.
Second, I appreciate the importance for proceedings under the Act, including mediation and ECT hearings, to be conducted in private, in the interest of workplace harmony. However, as mediations and hearings are formal processes, they would undoubtedly be daunting for workers. It would thus be particularly nerve-wrecking for a worker to journey through this process alone. Can the Minister confirm if employees will be entitled to have support persons accompany them in these proceedings? If so, can the Minister confirm if this will be set out in the regulations or guidelines as to who can serve as support persons in proceedings under the Act?
Third, like my colleague the MP for Hougang Mr Dennis Tan, I would like to ask the Minister to clarify the support available to workers who struggle to navigate the various proceedings because they are not so conversant in English or struggle with digital literacy? Such support should at the very least include help to submit claims, file documents, and generally navigate the procedural parts of the entire process. All of us have seen residents who find it particularly challenging to commence claims or to continue pursuing claims through the tribunals because they are either unable to or lack confidence in navigating the system, and this is particularly important since legal representation is not allowed in ECT proceedings.
Four, there are three particular groups of workers whom we should pay particular attention in relation to the dispute resolution mechanisms: (1) workers with disabilities; (2) workers who have suffered both workplace discrimination and workplace harassment; and (3) workers who have been traumatised by their workplace experiences.
On workers with disabilities. The dispute resolution mechanisms should be accessible for different types of disabilities. As it currently stands, the SG Courts website contains an accessibility statement stating that a sign language interpreter may be requested only in certain types of cases. This should be expanded to include employment cases before the ECT. It is also not clear whether claimants who are blind or have low vision will be able to effectively use the Community Justice and Tribunals System (CJTS) to file and manage their claims under this Act. Can the Minister confirm that accommodations will be made to workers with disabilities at all stages of the dispute resolution process when they make a claim under this Act?
On workers who have suffered both workplace discrimination and workplace harassment. The current framework could create unnecessary barriers as they attempt to seek justice. First, they must file a claim with the ECT in respect of the discrimination they have experienced. Then, they must file a separate claim with the Protection from Harassment Court (PHC) in respect of the harassment they have been subject to.
This imposes another layer for those seeking redress to navigate, and may deter a worker from seeking recourse. This in turn may contribute to under-reporting and allow errant employers to get away with their bad behaviour because workers are not able or willing to meaningfully engage with the legal process. Would the Minister consider allowing a worker who has experienced both workplace discrimination and workplace harassment to have both their claims under the Workplace Fairness Act and the Protection from Harassment Act heard before the ECT?
Finally, on workers who have been traumatised by their workplace experiences. I have three recommendations.
One, the requirement for mandatory mediation may unnecessarily risk the retraumatisation of the worker and cause more harm. Instead, the Commissioner should be given the discretion to make an exception from the mandatory mediation requirement in serious cases where a worker is able to obtain supporting evidence from a psychiatrist or psychotherapist that participation in the mediation will put their mental and emotional wellbeing at risk.
Two, approved mediators, ECT tribunal members and judges should be provided with training and support so that they can conduct the dispute resolution process in a trauma-informed manner to minimise inflicting further harm on the aggrieved worker who is navigating a complicated legal process to seek justice. In this regard, it is also important that they receive sensitivity training that helps them to understand the lived experiences of workers with the different protected characteristics so that they can make meaningful and fair decisions.
Third, the timelines for the dispute resolution mechanisms should be fast as administratively possible to minimise workers having to deal with the uncertainty and anxiety that come with such legal proceedings. In particular, it would be helpful to provide claimants - and employers - with clear guidance on the expected timelines. The guidance can also help the Ministry evaluate whether more resources and manpower need to be dedicated to the dispute resolution mechanisms so that claims can be processed and resolved in accordance with the target timelines.
Mr Speaker, as former President Halimah Yacob said, “Discrimination of any form and against anyone has no place at all in our society and, most certainly, not at the workplace.” To eradicate workplace discrimination, we must ensure that the processes for workers to seek recourse do not themselves create barriers or cause further harm to the workers who have decided to stand up for themselves. Thank you.
