\n<\/p>\n
Mr Muhaimin described the exclusion of outsourced workers, who are often older workers in lower income jobs, as a \u201csignificant gap\u201d in this Bill. Currently, tripartite advisory for this group of workers does not include anti-discriminatory practices by service buyers.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis 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,\u201d the first-time MP said.<\/p>\n
Likewise, Mr Cai Yinzhou (PAP-Bishan Toa Payoh) was concerned about the Bill\u2019s exclusion of outsourced workers and freelancers, including platform workers which total up to about 67,600 last year.<\/p>\n
In response, Dr Tan said the new legislation focuses on protecting workers in employee-employer relationships as the authorities want to take a \u201csure-footed and prudent approach\u201d in implementing the law.<\/p>\n
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 \u201cnon job-related characteristics\u201d.<\/p>\n
Several MPs also brought up concerns on how the proposed law might favour employers, given an asymmetry of power.<\/p>\n
Mr Chua from the Workers’ Party raised the issue of evidential burden in employment discrimination claims, noting that the power \u201clies almost invariably\u201d with the employer who controls data, documents, human resource decisions, appraisals among other things.<\/p>\n
He added that it is also often difficult to prove that an employer\u2019s adverse employment decision is due to discrimination, and that local employment laws do not require employers to provide any reason when terminating an employee\u2019s services.<\/p>\n
\u201cThese actions may obfuscate discrimination beneath a veneer of legitimacy, thus making it harder for claimants to prove their case,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
At the same time, it is important to \u201cstrike a balance\u201d between helping workers seek redress and safeguarding employers from frivolous accusations, said Dr Tan in response.<\/p>\n
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 \u201cproactively manage\u201d the fact-finding process and can direct the employer to disclose relevant documents or information, added the minister.<\/p>\n
Ms Gho Sze Kee (PAP-Mountbatten) called for companies\u2019 in-house counsels to be \u201crestricted\u201d at these tribunals.<\/p>\n
While direct legal representation is not allowed at ECTs, there is nothing stopping either side from engaging lawyers to \u201cadvise and prepare\u201d their cases, said Ms Gho, who is a lawyer.<\/p>\n
And if an employer is large enough to have in-house counsel, there is inevitably already a \u201cDavid and Goliath situation\u201d, she added.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cParties coming through this system must have confidence that they are not handicapped, and that the system is fair and equitable to all parties,\u201d said Ms Gho.<\/p>\n
The issue of a power asymmetry impacts those from vulnerable groups, such as persons with disabilities, said Ms Elysa Chen (PAP-Bishan\u2013Toa 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.<\/p>\n
Others like Ms Denise Phua (PAP-Jalan Besar) suggested having an independent advocate accompany workers in the dispute resolution process.<\/p>\n
Dr Tan responded that the judiciary already has a scheme where parties can apply for someone to provide administrative or emotional support during proceedings.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n