She takes on ex-boss over benefits
by Arul John
LAST year, the number of complaints that the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) got about non-payment of benefits in lieu of notice fell by more than 15 per cent from the year before.
But there were still more than 900 of them.
Madam Joanne Tham, 34, is one such complainant.
She had worked as the marketing director of The Expat Group, which publishes The Expat, a monthly magazine, for just over a year.
Then she was asked to leave - within nine days (including weekends) of being informed of her termination.
And she claimed that she was not given any benefits in lieu of notice.
She said she was given the bad news by Ms Linda Gouw, listed as the general manager in the June issue of the magazine.
She said Ms Gouw, who was also Expat's managing director (MD), assured her in writing that she was entitled to her termination benefits.
But company CEO Christopher Cheney overruled that decision later.
The matter was referred to MOM, which had a meeting with her and later e-mailed her that a mediation session is scheduled for 1Dec.
An MOM spokesman said that if mediation failed, Madam Tham could take legal action to get what was due to her.
Here are the main points of the dispute.
What were her employment terms when she joined the company?
Madam Tham: I was earning a monthly salary of $4,800. My employment terms stated that I would be entitled to a month's pay in lieu of notice.
I was also entitled to three months' maternity leave a year, 16 days paid annual leave and three days paid childcare leave a year.
These terms and conditions were in the firm's employee handbook.
Mr Cheney: Madam Tham's claims are untrue. She was working for another company at the time, not The Expat Group.
What were the circumstances of her termination?
Madam Tham: While working for Expat, I was on maternity leave from 5 May to 22 Jun to give birth to and look after my son.
I was entitled to three months' paid maternity leave, but I returned to work for six days - 23 to 30 Jun - to help the firm move from Tanjong Pagar to its new offices on Henderson Road.
So I had six days of unused maternity leave, as well as 71/2 unused days of annual leave and one day of unused childcare leave.
On 22 Oct, Ms Gouw told me my services were no longer needed and my last day would be 31 Oct.
In a letter dated 29 Oct, Ms Gouw told me that the reason for my termination was 'changing circumstances' and not because of my work performance, which had been excellent.
The letter said I was a 'reliable and high-performance employee' who had 'offered practical solutions to the tasks' I had been assigned.
Ms Gouw: I am unable to comment as I have since left Expat.
What benefits were she entitled to?
by Arul John
LAST year, the number of complaints that the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) got about non-payment of benefits in lieu of notice fell by more than 15 per cent from the year before.
But there were still more than 900 of them.
Madam Joanne Tham, 34, is one such complainant.
She had worked as the marketing director of The Expat Group, which publishes The Expat, a monthly magazine, for just over a year.
Then she was asked to leave - within nine days (including weekends) of being informed of her termination.
And she claimed that she was not given any benefits in lieu of notice.
She said she was given the bad news by Ms Linda Gouw, listed as the general manager in the June issue of the magazine.
She said Ms Gouw, who was also Expat's managing director (MD), assured her in writing that she was entitled to her termination benefits.
But company CEO Christopher Cheney overruled that decision later.
The matter was referred to MOM, which had a meeting with her and later e-mailed her that a mediation session is scheduled for 1Dec.
An MOM spokesman said that if mediation failed, Madam Tham could take legal action to get what was due to her.
Here are the main points of the dispute.
What were her employment terms when she joined the company?
Madam Tham: I was earning a monthly salary of $4,800. My employment terms stated that I would be entitled to a month's pay in lieu of notice.
I was also entitled to three months' maternity leave a year, 16 days paid annual leave and three days paid childcare leave a year.
These terms and conditions were in the firm's employee handbook.
Mr Cheney: Madam Tham's claims are untrue. She was working for another company at the time, not The Expat Group.
What were the circumstances of her termination?
Madam Tham: While working for Expat, I was on maternity leave from 5 May to 22 Jun to give birth to and look after my son.
I was entitled to three months' paid maternity leave, but I returned to work for six days - 23 to 30 Jun - to help the firm move from Tanjong Pagar to its new offices on Henderson Road.
So I had six days of unused maternity leave, as well as 71/2 unused days of annual leave and one day of unused childcare leave.
On 22 Oct, Ms Gouw told me my services were no longer needed and my last day would be 31 Oct.
In a letter dated 29 Oct, Ms Gouw told me that the reason for my termination was 'changing circumstances' and not because of my work performance, which had been excellent.
The letter said I was a 'reliable and high-performance employee' who had 'offered practical solutions to the tasks' I had been assigned.
Ms Gouw: I am unable to comment as I have since left Expat.
What benefits were she entitled to?
