Bosses won't need to report cost-saving wage cuts from Aug 1

Employers with 10 or more workers will no longer have to inform the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) of wage cuts taken in the name of cost-saving from Aug 1.

This comes as average monthly notifications fell to eight on average in the first three months of this year, compared with a peak of 1,713 at the start of the circuit breaker in April 2020, MOM said.

It instituted the reporting rule in March 2020 to monitor the pandemic's impact on workers, as well as to provide timely aid to employers.

It was a temporary measure, said MOM.

On Aug 1, its advisory on retrenchment benefits owed to laid-off employees will also cease to take effect.

The May 2020 advisory allowed employers leeway with payouts, such as giving lump sums to workers that they let go.

This softened the financial strain on employers over norms laid out by the tripartite alliance, such as pro-rated payouts for each year of service of retrenched workers.

From 198 at its highest in August 2020, the number of employers turning to this relief measure has fallen to a monthly average of eight in the first three months of this year, MOM said.

Employers carrying out layoffs must still notify MOM within five days after informing affected staff, if the firm hires at least 10 workers.

They can refer to the tripartite advisory on managing excess manpower and responsible retrenchment, the ministry added.

In response to the report, labour MP Patrick Tay reminded employers that they should inform unions and MOM early so that retrenched workers can get help.

---

Some disputes resolved last year

1 WRONGFUL DISMISSAL

Mr Lee's Singapore employer agreed to help him switch employment to a vendor after he decided to stay put in Malaysia - where he had returned home to during the pandemic - after border controls ceased.

But the employer botched the paperwork, and he lodged a claim with the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) for wrongful dismissal. TADM, which mediates and advises workers and employers on employment disputes, found no conclusive evidence to back up his claim.

After TADM's mediation, Mr Lee's employer compensated him for his loss of income during that period as a gesture of goodwill.

Gary was owed more than $7,000 for supplies and meals that he was regularly asked to buy for other workers when his company's cash flow dried up during the pandemic.

After several failed tries to get his boss to pay him, he filed a claim for unpaid salary.

Under TADM's mediation, his boss agreed to settle in three instalments, with progress to be tracked by TADM. After two months, Gary got his reimbursements.

Daniel took his boss to TADM for unpaid salary after working overtime for no pay, and receiving only parts of his wages in his two years of employment.

His boss agreed to pay less than half of what he was owed. After TADM warned that the case would be sent to the Employment Claims Tribunals for adjudication, Daniel's boss relented.