Landmark workplace fairness law passed, to take effect in 2027

SINGAPORE: A law introducing a dispute resolution framework, which workers can use to file discrimination claims, was passed in parliament on Tuesday (Nov 4).

Tabling the Workplace Fairness (Dispute Resolution) Bill for a second reading, Manpower Minister Tan See Leng described the new Workplace Fairness Act as a “significant step” in ensuring fairer and more harmonious workplaces.

“There is no room for discrimination in our workplaces. When such cases unfortunately arise, we want the parties involved to be equipped with the necessary tools and resources, which will then allow them to resolve the issue amicably and expeditiously,” he said.

“The model that we have carefully designed enables workplace discrimination issues to be discussed and resolved quickly, while ensuring just outcomes.”

Authorities aim to implement the Workplace Fairness Act in end-2027, said Dr Tan.

The passing of the landmark law comes four years after then-Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced during the 2021 National Day Rally that Singapore would enshrine workplace anti-discrimination guidelines into law.

The legislation was introduced through two Bills, the first tabled in November last year and set out the scope of what the workplace fairness law will cover and what employers are expected to comply with.

In January, lawmakers unanimously supported a Bill that enacted the Workplace Fairness Act and established age, nationality, sex, race and disability as areas where workers are protected against discrimination. Employers who break the law can be ordered to attend educational workshops and pay financial penalties.

The second Bill, which was tabled last month, focused on the dispute resolution process by proposing a framework that aims to help parties find a just resolution.

A total of 18 Members of Parliament (MPs) spoke in support of the Bill on Tuesday, peppering their speeches with anecdotes from residents.

For many workers, especially women and caregivers, fairness at work is “deeply personal”, said Ms Yeo Wan Ling (PAP-Punggol), adding that many female workers have shared with her that “bias still shadows their careers” today.

One manager found her duties reduced after she returned from maternity leave, while another was asked during an interview whether she planned to start a family - “a question that had nothing to do with her job”, said Ms Yeo.

Ms Mariam Jaafar (PAP-Sembawang) recalled how a resident had came to her Meet-the-People Session on Monday asking for help. She had been terminated from her job with notice, just after returning from hospitalisation leave for in-vitro fertilisation treatment.

“The true test of fairness is not only in how the law is written, or how processes are set up – it is in how workers experience it every day,” Ms Mariam said.

“Fairness must not only be fair, but must feel fair to the people who live it.”

CONCERNS OVER “TIME BARS”, EXCLUDED GROUPS

MPs also raised concerns about details of the Bill and various excluded groups, as well as a potential power imbalance between employers and employees.

One concern centred on the time limits for filing claims. The new Bill introduces “time bars”, which are deadlines within which individuals must lodge workplace fairness claims. These typically range from one to 12 months, depending on the claimant’s circumstances.

Labour chief Ng Chee Meng (PAP-Jalan Kayu) said such limits “can be quite tight” and called on the government to consider exceptional cases, such as when “a worker did not reasonably know that they were discriminated against”.

Mr Louis Chua (WP-Sengkang) wanted to know how the “time bars” were determined and if the government could consider extending them, especially for pre- and post- employment cases. This is when claimants may be busy with job searches, he said, and therefore have little time, energy or mind space to build their case.

Making a similar point, fellow opposition MP Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik (WP-Sengkang) recalled meeting residents overwhelmed by distress and the challenges of supporting their families after losing their jobs.

Noting that the new Bill allows late requests “if there is a reasonable excuse” and asked for more details. He also asked if authorities might consider the “just and equitable” approach under the United Kingdom’s Equality Act when assessing such cases

In his closing speech, Dr Tan reiterated that the “time bars” are designed to encourage timely filing of valid claims before evidence degrades over time, while also providing reassurance to employers that old claims will not be dredged up many years later.

At the same time, the time limits account for extenuating circumstances. For example, the new Bill provides employees who are dismissed when certified pregnant more time to come forward.

The Manpower Ministry also has the discretion to accept late mediation requests if there are “reasonable grounds”, such as when the worker is incapacitated or seriously ill, the minister said.

Mr Muhaimin described the exclusion of outsourced workers, who are often older workers in lower income jobs, as a “significant gap” in this Bill. Currently, tripartite advisory for this group of workers does not include anti-discriminatory practices by service buyers.

“This creates a troubling situation where service buyers can specify preferred race, age or religion of the workers, forcing service providers to implement discriminatory practices or face contractual penalties,” the first-time MP said.

Likewise, Mr Cai Yinzhou (PAP-Bishan Toa Payoh) was concerned about the Bill’s exclusion of outsourced workers and freelancers, including platform workers which total up to about 67,600 last year.

In response, Dr Tan said the new legislation focuses on protecting workers in employee-employer relationships as the authorities want to take a “sure-footed and prudent approach” in implementing the law.

However, he stressed that the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices will be updated to clarify that platform operators and corporate service buyers should not discriminate based on “non job-related characteristics”.

A POWER IMBALANCE?

Several MPs also brought up concerns on how the proposed law might favour employers, given an asymmetry of power.

Mr Chua from the Workers' Party raised the issue of evidential burden in employment discrimination claims, noting that the power “lies almost invariably” with the employer who controls data, documents, human resource decisions, appraisals among other things.

He added that it is also often difficult to prove that an employer’s adverse employment decision is due to discrimination, and that local employment laws do not require employers to provide any reason when terminating an employee’s services.

“These actions may obfuscate discrimination beneath a veneer of legitimacy, thus making it harder for claimants to prove their case,” he said.

At the same time, it is important to “strike a balance” between helping workers seek redress and safeguarding employers from frivolous accusations, said Dr Tan in response.

For this reason, a worker alleging workplace discrimination must support their claim with evidence. But under the Employment Claims Tribunals (ECTs) judge-led process, the court will also “proactively manage” the fact-finding process and can direct the employer to disclose relevant documents or information, added the minister.

Ms Gho Sze Kee (PAP-Mountbatten) called for companies’ in-house counsels to be “restricted” at these tribunals.

While direct legal representation is not allowed at ECTs, there is nothing stopping either side from engaging lawyers to “advise and prepare” their cases, said Ms Gho, who is a lawyer.

And if an employer is large enough to have in-house counsel, there is inevitably already a “David and Goliath situation”, she added. 

“Parties coming through this system must have confidence that they are not handicapped, and that the system is fair and equitable to all parties,” said Ms Gho.

The issue of a power asymmetry impacts those from vulnerable groups, such as persons with disabilities, said Ms Elysa Chen (PAP-Bishan–Toa Payoh) who asked if social service agencies or non-profit organisations can be allowed to represent claimants with these disabilities during mediation sessions and tribunal proceedings.

Others like Ms Denise Phua (PAP-Jalan Besar) suggested having an independent advocate accompany workers in the dispute resolution process.

Dr Tan responded that the judiciary already has a scheme where parties can apply for someone to provide administrative or emotional support during proceedings.

CONCERNS ABOUT SMES

The new requirements could pose challenges for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), or give rise to “frivolous claims”, some MPs said.

PAP’s Ms Yeo, who is also assistant secretary-general of the National Trades Union Congress, said “many SME owners have shared … concerns that this Bill could open them to frivolous or vexatious complaints”, which may in turn bring about financial distress.

Dr Tan said while the Workplace Fairness Act will see baseline requirements, authorities are aware of the differing human resource capabilities of firms and have refrained from “being overly prescriptive”.

In addition, the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices will provide firms with “practical” support, such as a grievance handling handbook with sample procedures for employers, he added.

MP Shawn Loh (PAP-Jalan Besar) raised the possibility of “frivolous claims” as well as the potential for claim amounts to be inflated.

“It is not yet clear how the Employment Claims Tribunal will impose costs against those who pursue claims without sufficient merit. And I welcome MOM to eventually publish the results of such cases to deter frivolous claims,” he said.

In response, Dr Tan said that this would be a matter for the judge hearing the claim to decide based on the facts of the case.

“The judge may consider factors such as the conduct of the parties during the proceedings and the efforts made by parties at amicable resolution,” he added.

Mr Edward Chia (PAP-Holland-Bukit Timah) added that the system must remain balanced, not only protecting genuine cases, but also preventing misuse. He asked what safeguards are in place to deter such claims.

“Clear definitions and examples of discrimination will give both employers and employees the confidence to act fairly and reasonably,” said Mr Chia.

In his opening speech, Dr Tan said that employers can apply for such frivolous claims to be struck out and that judges will also be empowered to strike out claims on their own motion, and can award costs against a person who pursues a claim that is without merit.

Additionally, those who file these claims can be investigated by the police for abusing the court’s processes and if they persist in raising “unmeritorious” claims, can be restricted from commencing further legal proceedings, added the minister.