http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/news/story/0,4136,191102,00.html?
Why sack me before verdict?
Now, former technician jobless despite being cleared of charge
By Desmond Ng
January 29, 2009
TNP PICTURE: KELVIN CHNG
IT'S bad enough to be charged with receiving stolen goods.
But it's even worse when you get sacked for that, even before the court judgment.
Former Singapore Airlines technician Rajasegaran Balakrishnan, 34, has since been cleared by the High Court.
Before his trouble with the law, he had been with SIA Engineering for 11 years.
Two weeks ago, Mr Raja walked out of court a free man, but with little to celebrate because he's now jobless.
He is doing odd-jobs now to support his two sons, aged 7 and 8. He is divorced and has custody of his children.
TERMINATED: The letter that Mr Raja received from SIA just days after he was arrested.
He said he is still puzzled about why he was fired by his employer on 2 Nov 2007, even before his case was heard in court.
A Singapore Airlines employee, Mr Clement Louis Arokiasamy Joseph, was also dismissed in similar fashion while he was remanded in prison on a corruption charge, for which he was subsequently cleared.
Mr Raja's troubles started when he accepted three jerry cans of stolen cough mixture from a colleague for safekeeping on 29 Oct 2007.
His colleague - who was subsequently charged with theft in dwelling - had stolen the cough mixture from a clinic at the SIA Airline House the day before.
Mr Raja was arrested on 30 Oct 2007 and charged with dishonestly receiving stolen property.
Not aware of theft
But he maintained that he didn't know or suspect that the cough syrup was stolen.
He was fined $3,000 in default of three weeks' jail in the Subordinate Courts last April by District Judge Kamala Ponnampalam.
He appealed and was cleared of the charge by the High Court, which upheld his appeal.
Mr Raja said: 'I am innocent. My reputation and name is at stake. I know I am clean. And I don't want a criminal record to my name.'
Because of his job loss and financial hardship, Mr Raja was granted free legal aid by the Law Society under the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme.
He was represented by lawyers Tan Hee Joek and Foo Yuet Min from Drew and Napier.
As an aircraft technician, Mr Raja earned about $3,000 a month, including overtime allowances.
Now, he earns about $40 to $50 a day loading and unloading goods - hardly enough to support hisfamily.
He said that he received his termination letter via registered mail.
There were no calls from his supervisors or human resource officers from the company, he said.
'I was shocked. I didn't know what to do. I am a single parent, divorced with two children. How am I supposed to take care of my kids if I've no job?'
The family lives in a four-room flat in Hougang.
His termination letter said he was charged in court for breaking into the Airline House clinic, which was incorrect, claimed Mr Raja.
He was charged with dishonestly receiving stolen property and claimed he was on leave the day the office was broken into.
The letter also mentioned that he had failed to report for work since 31 Oct 2007.
Mr Raja explained that he couldn't report to work because he had to go to the police station to help with investigations.
He had also surrendered his airport passes to the police on 1 Nov.
Boss informed
He said: 'The human resources division would have known what was going on. I also told my boss and my operations manager about my situation and that my passes had been confiscated.
'They just told me to wait for the case to be over.'
His car, a Hyundai Matrix, was repossessed in December 2007 because he was unable to pay the monthly payment of $500.
He is now paying off the balance of $17,000 owed to a finance company.
Mr Raja said he had applied for more than 20 jobs, but had not been called for any interviews.
'It's unfair to be sacked when I had not even had my say in court yet. I think it's unreasonable that they just terminate me like that even though I've been with the company for so long,' he said.
When contacted, Singapore Airlines said its policy was not to comment on former employees.
Mr David Ang, executive director of the Singapore Human Resources Institute, said a company must have good reason to sack an employee before a court judgment.
Usually, if an employee has been arrested or is in remand, the employer should wait until the verdict is out, especially if the employee has no criminal record.
He said: 'Normally, we have to give some benefit of the doubt to the employee. Even if the employee has been charged, it could be a wrongful charge.
'The employer should wait until things get settled. The dismissal could be a bit too premature.'
If the employee is working in a sensitive area, the company could ask him to go on either paid or unpaid leave until the case is settled, he added.
Mr Ang said that in a normal employment contract, if an employee is continuously absent from work for 72 hours without informing his supervisor or company, then he'll could be liable for dismissal.
He said that Mr Raja could seek help from the Ministry of Manpower if he feels that he has been unfairly dismissed.
Why sack me before verdict?
Now, former technician jobless despite being cleared of charge
By Desmond Ng
January 29, 2009
TNP PICTURE: KELVIN CHNG
IT'S bad enough to be charged with receiving stolen goods.
But it's even worse when you get sacked for that, even before the court judgment.
Former Singapore Airlines technician Rajasegaran Balakrishnan, 34, has since been cleared by the High Court.
Before his trouble with the law, he had been with SIA Engineering for 11 years.
Two weeks ago, Mr Raja walked out of court a free man, but with little to celebrate because he's now jobless.
He is doing odd-jobs now to support his two sons, aged 7 and 8. He is divorced and has custody of his children.
TERMINATED: The letter that Mr Raja received from SIA just days after he was arrested.
He said he is still puzzled about why he was fired by his employer on 2 Nov 2007, even before his case was heard in court.
A Singapore Airlines employee, Mr Clement Louis Arokiasamy Joseph, was also dismissed in similar fashion while he was remanded in prison on a corruption charge, for which he was subsequently cleared.
Mr Raja's troubles started when he accepted three jerry cans of stolen cough mixture from a colleague for safekeeping on 29 Oct 2007.
His colleague - who was subsequently charged with theft in dwelling - had stolen the cough mixture from a clinic at the SIA Airline House the day before.
Mr Raja was arrested on 30 Oct 2007 and charged with dishonestly receiving stolen property.
Not aware of theft
But he maintained that he didn't know or suspect that the cough syrup was stolen.
He was fined $3,000 in default of three weeks' jail in the Subordinate Courts last April by District Judge Kamala Ponnampalam.
He appealed and was cleared of the charge by the High Court, which upheld his appeal.
Mr Raja said: 'I am innocent. My reputation and name is at stake. I know I am clean. And I don't want a criminal record to my name.'
Because of his job loss and financial hardship, Mr Raja was granted free legal aid by the Law Society under the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme.
He was represented by lawyers Tan Hee Joek and Foo Yuet Min from Drew and Napier.
As an aircraft technician, Mr Raja earned about $3,000 a month, including overtime allowances.
Now, he earns about $40 to $50 a day loading and unloading goods - hardly enough to support hisfamily.
He said that he received his termination letter via registered mail.
There were no calls from his supervisors or human resource officers from the company, he said.
'I was shocked. I didn't know what to do. I am a single parent, divorced with two children. How am I supposed to take care of my kids if I've no job?'
The family lives in a four-room flat in Hougang.
His termination letter said he was charged in court for breaking into the Airline House clinic, which was incorrect, claimed Mr Raja.
He was charged with dishonestly receiving stolen property and claimed he was on leave the day the office was broken into.
The letter also mentioned that he had failed to report for work since 31 Oct 2007.
Mr Raja explained that he couldn't report to work because he had to go to the police station to help with investigations.
He had also surrendered his airport passes to the police on 1 Nov.
Boss informed
He said: 'The human resources division would have known what was going on. I also told my boss and my operations manager about my situation and that my passes had been confiscated.
'They just told me to wait for the case to be over.'
His car, a Hyundai Matrix, was repossessed in December 2007 because he was unable to pay the monthly payment of $500.
He is now paying off the balance of $17,000 owed to a finance company.
Mr Raja said he had applied for more than 20 jobs, but had not been called for any interviews.
'It's unfair to be sacked when I had not even had my say in court yet. I think it's unreasonable that they just terminate me like that even though I've been with the company for so long,' he said.
When contacted, Singapore Airlines said its policy was not to comment on former employees.
Mr David Ang, executive director of the Singapore Human Resources Institute, said a company must have good reason to sack an employee before a court judgment.
Usually, if an employee has been arrested or is in remand, the employer should wait until the verdict is out, especially if the employee has no criminal record.
He said: 'Normally, we have to give some benefit of the doubt to the employee. Even if the employee has been charged, it could be a wrongful charge.
'The employer should wait until things get settled. The dismissal could be a bit too premature.'
If the employee is working in a sensitive area, the company could ask him to go on either paid or unpaid leave until the case is settled, he added.
Mr Ang said that in a normal employment contract, if an employee is continuously absent from work for 72 hours without informing his supervisor or company, then he'll could be liable for dismissal.
He said that Mr Raja could seek help from the Ministry of Manpower if he feels that he has been unfairly dismissed.
