any of the FCs are unhappy as they felt they have been shortchanged by the new terms and conditions. Previously, the benefits of FCs, who were unionised under the Singapore Insurance Employees’ Union (SIEU), were covered and protected by their collective agreement with NTUC Income. As independent agents, some of these benefits were lost and also, they no longer have the protection of the union. The worst felt is that the FCs received zero retrenchment compensations when their employee status was terminated by NTUC Income.
SIEU was also unhelpful. General consent from the FCs was not obtained by vote to see if they wanted to change their employment status. Ironically, SIEU is affiliated to NTUC.
Hence, the FCs wanted NTUC Income to provide retrenchment compensations in accordance with the last collective agreement the union signed with NTUC Income when they were SIEU members, which are one month salary for every year of service and all outstanding benefits that were withheld.
Subsequently, NTUC Income Senior Counsel Hri Kumar successfully applied to the Assistant Registrar of High Court to terminate the judicial process and referred the dispute to a closed-door hearing at SIAC instead. Unhappy with the decision, the FCs filed another High Court application to have the dispute argued in open court. But Friday’s ruling now pushed the dispute hearing back to SIAC. It remains to be seen if the FCs will appeal against this decision.
FCs unsuccessful in suing SIEU
The FCs have come a long way in seeking justice for their predicament.
When they were terminated as employees in 2012, they actually spent more than a year trying to seek redress for their grievances through many channels, including appealing to MPs, Ministers, NTUC secretary-general Lim Swee Say, and writing to PM Lee, before considering to take legal actions. But nothing came out talking to the Ministers and MPs.
About a year later in March 2013, 3 FCs filed a court application against their union, SIEU, for failing to represent their interests (‘Union members go to court when union fails to represent their interests‘). The action of the 3 FCs.....http://www.tremeritus.com/2015/01/04/ntuc-income-saga-court-refers-dispute-to-siac/
SIEU was also unhelpful. General consent from the FCs was not obtained by vote to see if they wanted to change their employment status. Ironically, SIEU is affiliated to NTUC.
Hence, the FCs wanted NTUC Income to provide retrenchment compensations in accordance with the last collective agreement the union signed with NTUC Income when they were SIEU members, which are one month salary for every year of service and all outstanding benefits that were withheld.
Subsequently, NTUC Income Senior Counsel Hri Kumar successfully applied to the Assistant Registrar of High Court to terminate the judicial process and referred the dispute to a closed-door hearing at SIAC instead. Unhappy with the decision, the FCs filed another High Court application to have the dispute argued in open court. But Friday’s ruling now pushed the dispute hearing back to SIAC. It remains to be seen if the FCs will appeal against this decision.
FCs unsuccessful in suing SIEU
The FCs have come a long way in seeking justice for their predicament.
When they were terminated as employees in 2012, they actually spent more than a year trying to seek redress for their grievances through many channels, including appealing to MPs, Ministers, NTUC secretary-general Lim Swee Say, and writing to PM Lee, before considering to take legal actions. But nothing came out talking to the Ministers and MPs.
About a year later in March 2013, 3 FCs filed a court application against their union, SIEU, for failing to represent their interests (‘Union members go to court when union fails to represent their interests‘). The action of the 3 FCs.....http://www.tremeritus.com/2015/01/04/ntuc-income-saga-court-refers-dispute-to-siac/
