Dozens of NTUC Income financial consultants (FCs) who were union members showed up in High Court in support of the hearing yesterday (9 Sep). On 27 Mar, the union members filed a High Court application against their own union, Singapore Insurance Employees’ Union (SIEU) for failing to represent their interests (‘Breaking: Union members go to court when union fails to represent their interests‘). They wanted the Court to declare that SIEU is in breach of the union’s constitution in failing to secure adequate representation of the interest and welfare of its members as well as failing to improve the working conditions and looking after the economic status of its members. Furthermore, they want the Court to order SIEU to refer their dispute with their employer, NTUC Income, to the Industrial Arbitration Court for a resolution or alternatively to order that the grievance procedure of the Collective Agreement (CA) be restored for a resolution of the dispute. SIEU is a union affiliated with NTUC, the national federation of trade unions in Singapore. The FCs contend that they were forced to enter into a new contract with their employer NTUC Income, thereby effectively terminating their legal employment with NTUC Income and rendering them as independent contractors. They received no compensation package. Furthermore, they contend that the move, making them as independent contractors would end the FCs’ status as ordinary union members thereby causing them to lose their protections under the CA, since they would no longer be employees of NTUC Income. FCs said SIEU did not take care of their interests to negotiate with their employer NTUC Income on the matter. Just 3 days before the court hearing yesterday, SIEU filed an affidavit [Link] on 6 Sep, asking the court to dismiss the FCs’ court application with costs for the following reasons: (a) There is no “trade dispute” (as defined by the Trade Disputes Act (Cap. 331) and the Trade Unions Act (Cap. 333)) to be referred to the Industrial Arbitration Court; (b) Even if there were e trade dispute, SIEU, as a trade union, can only refer a trade dispute to the Industrial Arbitration Court in accordance with subsections 31(a) to (f) of the Industrial Relations Act (Cap.136). lt is submitted that none of those subsections are applicable, i.e. SIEU has no right to refer a trade dispute falling outside subsections 31(a) to (f) to the Industrial Arbitration Court; (c) That even if SIEU could refer the alleged trade dispute to the Industrial Arbitration Court under section 31 of the Industrial Relations Act, SIEU has no duty to do so. SIEU’s duty is the collective membership of the Union; and (d) In any event, SIEU, as a trade union, cannot represent persons who are not employees since the FCs are no longer NTUC Income employees but Independent Contractors currently. In other words, SIEU’s lawyer wanted the High Court to dismiss the case immediately on the grounds of technicality. In one of the concluding statements, SIEU’s lawyer argued, “The timing that the Plaintiffs (FCs) have chosen to air their grievances is inappropriate and comes too late, at a juncture when the union is no longer legally enabled to represent them in their negotiations with their ex-employer, NTUC Income.” In any case, the High Court Judge did not dismiss the FCs’ application immediately. The Court announced that it will reserve its judgement and give a verdict before 30 Sep. Lawyer M Ravi with NTUC Income FCs outside High Court In the speaking note [Link], which FCs’ lawyer M Ravi delivered in Court yesterday, he revealed some interesting findings. It was revealed that at a meeting held on 5 Jan last year, the CEO of NTUC Income said that going forward, all FCs would be given a new contract which would designate them as agents and no longer employees. Mr Matthias Yao who was then the Deputy Chairman of NTUC Income Board of Directors, was invited to chair the meeting. And in the meeting, Mr Yao instructed the union leaders that the management’s proposal was “not for negotiation”. It is interesting to note that at the time, according to NTUC Income’s annual report [Link], Mr Yao also served the Labour Movement as the Vice-Chairman of the NTUC-Ong Teng Cheong Education Trust Fund and was an Advisor to 5 trade unions. He also chaired the Board of Trustees of the NTUC Eldercare Trust. Mr Ravi also revealed that SIEU President Terry Lee had told the FCs, “The CEO said that the FCs who do not sign [the new contract] will not be able to sell our products…”, thereby confirming that the FCs were forced to enter into a new contract with their employer NTUC Income. Mr Ravi even quoted an article written by Mr Tan Kin Lian, the former CEO of NTUC Income, to support the FCs’ case. In his article, Mr Tan Kin Lian expressed concern that the strong co-operative values of the Labour Movement which had been a source of strength for NTUC Income, were at risk of going unrecognized or under-valued by new leadership which increasingly came from the private sector: “In the earlier years, I had the support of many members of the board who came from the trade union movement. They understand the need for NTUC Income to remain a cooperative society, so that it can better benefit the policyholders and trade union members. The influence of the trade union directors on the board diminished over the years as more directors are taken from outside for their management and professional experience. Coming from the private sector, they are not likely to understand the cooperative principles so passionately.” In conclusion, Mr Ravi argued that this is a case about everything what a trade union should not be. It is a classic example of how the worker is completely taken out of the equation by the limited scope provided for workers to advocate for their own rights within the current framework of tripartite negotiations. Mr Ravi said, “This case raises profound disquiet, as the workers found their interests and their interests and rights under the law trampled by their own Union in its negotiations that far better served the institution that was terminating the employment contracts rather than the Union members themselves. As a result of the Union’s failure to provide fair representation of the INCOME FCs, these workers were indiscriminately laid on a Procrustean bed*, to have their basic rights chopped away.” “Where the Union was supposed to determine the rights of the workers in regard to the termination of their employment, and advocate for their terms – be they retrenchment, retirement, or the acceptance of alternative work, the Union instead engaged in collective bargaining that resulted in nearly all the workers being compelled to sign an identical contract, that was to their detriment in terms of benefits and future bargaining rights.” Mr Ravi added, “The Union President wrote that this matter was a Trade Dispute and that he considered settled based on the fact that his members were signing the new Financial Consultants Agreement. However, we can see from the documents that have been filed in this matter, that the Union officers were well aware of the numerous outstanding issues at the time of INCOME management’s arbitrary deadline for signing the contract on 26 March 2012.” “They made a promise to continue to serve as a ‘feedback channel’ for the FCs the year following the signing of the new agreement, but by Mr Terry Lee’s own account, even after receiving advice on the matter from the Secretary General of NTUC, the Union fed-back to no one. The workers were completely abandoned by SIEU. This case raises a question as to whether an employee of an NTUC Enterprise can receive fair representation from an NTUC-member Union.” Mr Ravi argued that the lack of sincere advocacy on the part of SIEU and their refusal to report the matter to NTUC for assistance even though SIEU was contractually bound to do so in the event that a grievance went unresolved, is a cause for concern. “As the Unions are stakeholders in NTUC INCOME, SIEU should have treated the non-compliance with statutory requirements on the part of the employer and the proposal to terminate the Collective Agreement of 660 workers with far greater scrutiny. Instead of taking a proactive role, SIEU made no inquiries with statutory authorities and instead allowed the employer to dictate the terms of the resolution,” he said. Mr Ravi then asked the Court to consider the matter in regard to the rights of the worker, under the statutory framework, and help the FCs to find resolution for what they have been denied by their Union. The FCs told TR Emeritus that after the FCs were “pressured to consent” to sign the new agreement, SIEU washed its hands of the matter since the FCs are no longer employees of NTUC Income. For the next 1 year, the FCs tried to explore other channels to address their grievances and to seek justice: FCs appealed to MOM but since this was a union matter, they were referred back to union FCs wrote to Lim Boon Heng, Chairman of NTUC Enterprise FCs wrote to Diana Chia, President of NTUC under Lim Swee Say FCs appealed to CPF Board FCs wrote to PM Lee After 1 year with no resolution and as a last resort, the FCs had no choice but to turn to the court for help in March this year. The FCs hope that the case will be referred to the Industrial Arbitration Court by the High Court, since SIEU President couldn’t help them to do so. *In Greek mythology, Procrustes was a rogue bandit from Attica who physically attacked people by stretching them or cutting off their legs, so as to force them to fit the size of an iron bed. In general, when something is Procrustean, different lengths or sizes or properties are fitted to an arbitrary standard. VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171] Rating: 0 (from 0 votes) Posted in Editorial « PRC, 61, jailed for scalding co-tenant with hot waterWe once had capable leaders but not now – time for change »Sponsored Advertisement The Creepiest DBZ Character Fans Were Terrified To See Hold Your Breath And See How Adorable It Is! The Newest DBZ Version That Will Grab You By The Throat! Celebrities That Shockingly Resemble Video Game Characters 23 Responses to “NTUC Income financial consultants take their union to court” PinoysAreTheGreatest: September 10, 2013 at 9:19 am PinoysAreTheGreatest(Quote) What a bloody joke, NTUC related company guilty of mistreating employees??? They clearly has forgotten their roots and reason why NTUC was even there in the first place.
Posted on: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 03:20:47 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015