SINGAPORE: The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) has defended Dyson’s retrenchment exercise in Singapore, following the company’s layoffs that occurred earlier in October 2024.

In a statement to local media on Saturday, MOM confirmed that Dyson submitted the mandatory retrenchment notification within five working days of informing affected employees, which the ministry stated was “on time” according to existing regulations.

Despite this, Dyson’s handling of the retrenchment, including the limited notice given to employees and its engagement with the union, has attracted significant public and union criticism.

Insufficient notice sparks union and public criticism

The United Workers of Electronics and Electrical Industries (UWEEI), which represents Dyson’s employees in Singapore, criticised the company for providing only a one-day notice before the retrenchment exercise.

UWEEI confirmed that it had been informed of the layoffs on 1 October, a day before they were implemented.

The union expressed disappointment, stating that the short notice left little time to engage with Dyson or support the workers before the exercise began.

While most of the retrenched workers fell outside UWEEI’s formal representation under its agreement with Dyson, the union escalated the issue to MOM for further review.

MOM responded by noting that because the affected employees were not unionised, the one-day notice to the union was legally permissible.

The ministry clarified that in cases involving unionised workers, companies are expected to give the union a month’s notice before retrenchments, allowing time for joint efforts to assist affected staff.

However, MOM acknowledged that giving early notice is “good practice” and builds trust between employers and unions, suggesting that Dyson’s failure to do so had eroded goodwill.

Despite these explanations, the public reaction has been largely critical, with many calling for a review of MOM’s retrenchment guidelines.

Critics argue that current laws allow companies to fulfil their obligations on paper while offering minimal protection to workers in practice.

MOM’s position draws criticism for being outdated

Dyson’s compliance with existing laws has not quelled the backlash, with many questioning whether MOM’s retrenchment framework is outdated.

One social media commenter noted, “It’s unfortunate that MOM’s mandatory layoff notice timeline is quite primitive and outdated, allowing corporations to execute retrenchments before MOM and the union are informed. This is not how tripartism works.”

Other critics have highlighted that the short notice period effectively limits any meaningful intervention by unions or employees, calling for reforms to increase the mandatory notice period.

“The one-day notice should be reviewed and banned. It should be done three months in advance, not one day. One day is no different from silent termination,” commented another individual.

Dyson’s retrenchment also underscored the lack of mandatory retrenchment benefits in Singapore, with some commenters pointing out that companies are not legally required to offer such benefits.

While Dyson did provide retrenchment benefits in line with the Tripartite Advisory on Managing Excess Manpower and Responsible Retrenchment—offering benefits to both long-serving and shorter-term employees—many feel that the broader legal framework allows for too much flexibility, leaving workers vulnerable.

Retrenchment process raises concerns over corporate transparency

The retrenchment, which became public in early October, was part of a surprise move by the UK-based technology company, catching many off guard.

Dyson had previously reassured employees in Singapore that its operations, which serve as its global headquarters, would not be impacted by a global restructuring.

However, layoffs were confirmed to have affected staff in the manufacturing and procurement departments, creating unease among workers and raising concerns about the company’s transparency.

Media reported that the layoffs were conducted discreetly, with affected staff receiving email notifications for one-on-one meetings with human resources representatives.

During these meetings, employees were informed that their roles had been made redundant.

One laid-off worker described the process as “surreal,” noting that colleagues quietly packed up their belongings after receiving their notices.

The layoffs took place just three months after Dyson assured its Singapore-based workforce that local operations would not be impacted by its global restructuring plan.

These assurances had followed job cuts in July 2024 that affected 1,000 positions in the UK, further fuelling anxiety among employees in Singapore.

Some employees expressed concern that further retrenchments could be forthcoming, citing the company’s previous phased layoffs as a precedent.

While the total number of employees affected by the October retrenchment remains undisclosed, the layoffs have had a visible impact on workplace morale.

According to one employee, “No one knows if more cuts are coming next week. People are shocked and have low morale.”

This uncertainty has been compounded by Dyson’s reluctance to provide detailed information about the layoffs or future restructuring plans.

Dyson’s defence and ongoing discussions on labour protections

Dyson defended its actions by stating that the company is adjusting its team composition to better align with future growth plans.

A Dyson spokesperson reiterated that the firm remains committed to Singapore and its ambitions in the region, despite the retrenchment.

The company confirmed that affected employees would be offered career support, including outplacement services and counselling, but it declined to provide specifics on how it intends to assist laid-off staff.

MOM’s defence of Dyson’s retrenchment process has sparked calls for reform, with many urging for stronger protections for workers in such scenarios.

In response to the public criticism, MOM has indicated that it will engage with NTUC and the Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF) to review the implementation of Section 30A of the Industrial Relations Act.

This section allows unions to represent executives individually in retrenchment cases, even when they are not covered by a collective agreement.

As discussions continue, it remains to be seen whether the controversy surrounding Dyson’s retrenchment will lead to meaningful changes in Singapore’s labour laws, or if the issue will remain a flashpoint for critics of current retrenchment practices.

SINGAPORE: Transient Workers Count Too (TWC2), an advocacy group for migrant workers, has launched a fundraising campaign to support those facing difficulties, including work injuries, termination for requesting rightful salaries, or financial hardship due to disputes over underpayment.

The campaign, hosted on the Give.asia platform, aims to raise S$36,000 to provide a lifeline for these workers during their darkest hours.

The group stated that the funds will offer support to low-wage migrant workers in distress through various means, including meal assistance, phone top-ups, travel allowances, emergency shelter, and more.

TWC2 highlighted five types of workers in distress. For example, one cook was forced to perform unpaid work late into the night and was coerced into signing blank payslips.

He received less than half of his official salary, with his employer creating false timecards and payslips.

TWC2 specified the resources needed to assist migrant workers facing financial challenges over six months, including S$1,322 per month for an online helpdesk, S$876 for meal support, S$120 for phone top-ups, and S$80 for EZ-Link credit to attend Ministry of Manpower (MOM) appointments.

Worker Left Vulnerable After Company Closure: Loss of Housing and Belongings Leads to Months of Hardship

Another worker is struggling after his company closed down, leaving him without coverage for his injury.

Furthermore, his employer allegedly failed to pay his housing rent, resulting in the worker losing all his belongings, including his passport, cash, and clothes. He was left to beg and borrow clothes for nearly a month.

TWC2 stated that the funds will help him replace his passport, which costs around S$200, as well as cover S$2,228 for his monthly rent at the TWC2 shelter, S$480 for EZ-Link credit for travel to hospital appointments, and S$240 for phone top-ups.

The third case involves a migrant worker who was denied necessary surgery after suffering a finger injury from heavy machinery. Instead of being taken to the hospital immediately, he was brought to a small clinic, leading to an infection in his open fracture.

He was also pressured to return to his home country for treatment. Urgent surgery was delayed for 33 days because his employer withheld the necessary documents.

TWC2 is appealing for S$1,322 per month for online helpdesk support for this worker, S$1,898 for meal support, S$240 for phone top-ups, and S$480 for EZ-Link credit for travel to hospital appointments.

The fourth case involves a worker who was underpaid for overtime and rest day work.

He was fired after discussing information related to the Employment Act with his colleagues. His employer later contacted a potential future employer to disparage him.

This worker will require S$1,073 monthly to fund online information campaigns, S$120 for phone top-ups, and S$80 for EZ-Link credit to attend MOM appointments.

The fifth case concerns a worker who injured his back while lifting 50kg of cement. Although he was granted 300 days of medical leave, his employer did not report the incident to MOM, and the insurance company took over a year to investigate and accept his claim. The doctor instructed him to avoid catered food for health reasons.

TWC2 is seeking S$160 monthly for his groceries, S$120 for phone top-ups, and S$80 for EZ-Link credit to attend MOM appointments.

Part of this annual fundraising campaign commemorates International Migrants Day in December, which includes a luncheon, “Lunch With Heart,” for migrant workers to thank them for their contributions to Singapore.

TWC2 Highlights Ongoing Exploitation: Employers Bypass Laws to Undermine Workers’ Earnings

TWC2 noted that, according to Singapore’s Employment Act (Section 96), all workers should receive payslips detailing how their salaries are calculated and paid.

However, some employers still find ways to circumvent these laws, cheating workers out of their already low salaries. In 2023 alone, salary disputes rose by 55% according to MOM’s Employment Standards Report.

TWC2 emphasized that migrant workers who experience workplace accidents can be denied treatment by unscrupulous employers, despite being covered under the Work Injury Compensation Act. Even with medical insurance, they often lack access to it and may be sent back home with untreated injuries. The recovery process can be long and isolating, contributing to significant stress and mental health challenges for injured workers.

For these workers, a significant source of daily stress is financial insecurity.

“They are constantly thinking about providing for their family back home, ensuring loans are paid and sick family members have money for medical treatment. Essentially they are like us in every way.”

TWC2 highlighted that workers often take on overtime and forgo days off, even on public holidays, to earn higher wages. They should not be deprived of the wages they have rightfully earned or left with untreated injuries.

“We are appealing to you to offer a helping hand to these filial sons, devoted husbands, responsible mothers and dedicated workers, in their hour of dire need. ”

“We sincerely hope you can chip in so that these workers can have a lifeline in their darkest hours.”