Court refers case to SIAC
According to the TR Emeritus article “NTUC Income saga: Court refers dispute to SIAC” (Jan 4) – “The FCs felt that if their dispute with NTUC Income can be brought to an open court for the public to view, they would have better bargaining powers. Also, they felt that their alleged mistreatment by NTUC Income should be let known to the Singapore public, and serve as a ‘reminder’ to all employers in Singapore to respect the collective agreements with unions.”
What is “open court”, “closed-door”?
As a layman, I don’t really understand this thing about “open court” and “closed-door” hearings, or their significace. For example, I understand that so far – all of Roy Ngerng’s defamation case’s hearings including the summary judgement awarded, as well as the upcoming hearing on 12 January – have all been “closed-door” in chambers or something.
Another example, is that so far, all of the hearings on Roy Ngerng, Han Hui Hui and four others charged under the parks and trees act and/or public nuisance – have also been “closed-door”.
FCs’ employment contracts with NTUC Income terminated
“In February last year, NTUC Income FCs, Sim Cheng Kuan, Lim Kah Meng, Lim Poh Seng, and Tay Keng Hong, on behalf of 34 others, filed a legal class action against NTUC Income, for compensations due to the alleged illegal terminations of their employment contracts (‘FCs take collective legal action against NTUC Income‘) on 26 March 2012.
They alleged that they have been coerced into signing new service contracts under the guise of transfer and change of employment status, which transformed them from employees to independent self-employed agents overnight. The FCs also alleged that they were forced to sign the new contracts or they would not be allowed to continue to sell insurance products for NTUC Income.
More workers converted to contract workers
Many of the FCs are unhappy as they felt they have been shortchanged by the new terms and conditions. Previously, the benefits of FCs, who were unionised under the Singapore Insurance Employees’ Union (SIEU), were covered and protected by their collective agreement with NTUC Income. As independent agents, some of these benefits were lost and also, they no longer have the protection of the union. The worst felt is that the FCs received zero retrenchment compensations when their employee status was terminated by NTUC Income. Some of the FCs are from the pioneer generation and have practically given 30-40 years of their life to NTUC Income.” – This highlights a major issue for workers in Singapore. That more and more workers are being converted to contract workers with loss of benefits. Our trade union movement has failed to protect workers in this regard.
Union fight against union members?
“SIEU was also unhelpful. General consent from the FCs was not obtained by vote to see if they wanted to change their employment status. Ironically, SIEU is affiliated to NTUC.
Hence, the FCs wanted NTUC Income to provide retrenchment compensations in accordance with the last collective agreement the union signed with NTUC Income when they were SIEU members, which are one month salary for every year of service and all outstanding benefits that were withheld.
The FCs have come a long way in seeking justice for their predicament.
Nobody cares about workers’ rights?
When they were terminated as employees in 2012, they actually spent more than a year trying to seek redress for their grievances through many channels, including appealing to MPs, Ministers, NTUC secretary-general Lim Swee Say, and writing to PM Lee, before considering to take legal actions. But nothing came out talking to the Ministers and MPs.
Conflict of interest
About a year later in March 2013, 3 FCs filed a court application against their union, SIEU, for failing to represent their interests (‘Union members go to court when union fails to represent their interests‘). The action of the 3 FCs had the support of 141 other FCs in NTUC Income (‘141 union members behind court application against their union‘).” – This underscores the problem with our “government-linked” trade union movement with a cabinet Minister as its secretary-general, which is unique in the world.
Are there not inherent conflicts of interests? Apparently in this case, the union instead of representing the union members – fought against them in court instead.
“One of the FCs told TRE that in addition to the 38 FCs currently taking collective legal action against NTUC Income, there are at least 100 more giving them moral and financial support. The rest do not want to surface as they are younger and want to continue to work in the finance industry, and hence, do not want to incur the “wrath” of NTUC Income.”
Outcome of compliant to CPF Board?
“Meanwhile, in a separate development, more than a hundred FCs have filed a joint complaint to the CPF Board against NTUC Income for allegedly over-deducting from their income to pay into their CPF over many years. These over-deductions were not submitted to CPF Board but kept by NTUC Income which has not returned the bulk of these over-deductions to the FCs. This practice went on for many years in NTUC Income, according to the FCs TRE spoke to (‘Over 100 complain to CPF Board against NTUC Income‘).” – So, since the complaint to the CPF Board was filed some time ago – what is the outcome and response of the CPF Board?
Workers’ rights are undermined
To sum it up, I think it is instructive to read their legal counsel, Mr M Ravi’s remarks“Under the current law, the worker is completely taken out of the equation by the limited scope for workers to stand up for their own rights within the current framework of tripartite negotiations. However, I think that it is clear to all parties that these workers won’t be cast aside without a fight.” – So, our union movement and tripartite are just one super “wayang” lah!
Win battles lose war
TRS Contributor