MOM Details Manager's Work Claims
- The Sunday Times (20 April 2008) : MOM Details Manager's Work Claims
- The Sunday Times (30 March 2008) : MOM, why the differing views?
MOM Details Manager's Work Claims
- The Sunday Times, 20 April 2008
Please refer to letter by Mr Michael Yeo Khee Hiang, “MOM, why the differing views?” (The Sunday Times, 30 March).
2. In 2003, Mr Yeo sought assistance from the Ministry to resolve an employment dispute with his ex-employer over his contractual benefits and entitlements under the Employment Act (EA). The Ministry's preliminary assessment was that Mr Yeo, a manager, might be covered under the Employment Act. However further investigation and additional information from both Mr Yeo and his employer that his duties included supervision of projects and also the handling of confidential information, confirmed that he was not covered under the Act. Since Mr Yeo disagreed with this assessment, a hearing was arranged to hear his case but he withdrew his claim before the hearing date. Nonetheless, on the Ministry's advice, Mr Yeo's ex-employer had offered him an ex-gratia payment but the offer was rejected.
3. With regard to Mr Yeo's work injury claim, the Ministry had consistently ruled that he was not covered under the Workmen's Compensation Act. This is because he was not a workman and his salary had exceeded $1,600. He had objected to the Ministry's assessment but subsequently withdrew his claim.
4. Since 1 April 2008, the Workmen's Compensation Act has been replaced by the new Work Injury Compensation Act. Non-manual employees earning more than $1,600 a month are now covered. They can claim compensation for work-related injuries arising from accidents that happened on or after 1 April 2008.
MOM, why the differing views?
- The Sunday Times, 30 March 2008
I refer to the Ministry of Manpower's newsletter, The Employment Act And You (The Sunday Times. March 23), which stated that a person is not covered under the Employment Act if he is :
• A manager or an executive (for example, someone who is in charge of other employees or has influence in the hiring, firing, promotion, transfer, reward or discipline of other employees).
• Working in a confidential position, where he has access to classified company or financial information.
• A seaman or a domestic worker.
I was a manager/building consultant at my previous company. In my employment letter, a clause stated that I was covered under the MOM's Workmen Injury Compensation Act.
In 2003, I sustained a severe injury in my right arm at work. However, because of the injury and certain contractual disputes with my ex-employer, I left the company, and sought MOM's help to resolve these issues with my ex-employer.
Two years later, the MOM personnel handling my case was convinced that despite my managerial position, I was still covered under the Employment Act, as I was not in charge of other employees (hiring, firing or promotion), nor had access to classified company or financial information.
However my ex-employer refused to settle the matter.
Although it was stipulated that I was covered under the company's insurance, I discovered then that I was not.
The MOM then convened a meeting comprising its commissioner, my ex-employer and me. Despite MOM's earlier findings that my case fell within the Workmen Injury Compensation Act, the commissioner's stand was that it did not.
I would like to seek MOM's clarification on the differing opinions between its own personnel and its commissioner.