limlim:

3Boys:

By the way, if FCBC wins, and I don't believe they will, that's called justice being served. Why would you have an issue with that?

BIG Issue..

This sets a precedence.. employers can now be more \"creative\"..

They can potentially try all ways and means to paint the picture of a pregnant woman having \"undesirable\" conduct, and find means and ways to dismiss her w/o paying maternity benefits and such.

heck, one employer got away with it before, why not we try.......

Your case employer may have acted in good faith. but other employers may Not.

This potentially open up a can of worms and challenged the govt's directive of family friendly policies when maternity benefits are \"more easily\" taken away. More employers may try to be \"funny\".

You get the picture? it is not about your case employer unable to fire the employee due to \"undesirable\" conduct, but the greater implications on other employers and employees and workplace practices and employment rights and maternity benefits.

3Boys:

By the way, if FCBC wins, and I don't believe they will, that's called justice being served. Why would you have an issue with that?

3Boys:

Take Michael Palmer again.

kevkevkaf:

All these wouldn't be a problem if FCBC wrote a morality clause into their employment clause. An easier solution no?

3Boys:

Ask yourself, WHO is the protagonist here? MOM? LK?

It's that poor lady in the middle.

3Boys:

There is no good option for them.

To me, they could have gone either way on this, and I would have been fine. I would understand the reasons for taking either position.

BUT, to others, there was nothing FCBC could do right.

Keep the lady to term, \"Haha, what kind of hypocrite church are you, try to teach morals to others\"

Fire her, all hell breaks loose.

3Boys:

limlim:

or put it this way..

if the employer tries to influence the employee in the choice of partners.. then it is \"infringement of human rights\".. does this makes sense?

Complete nonsense.

There are many companies with a 'No workplace dating' policy.

Are the Human Rights of those employees infringed?

Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices:

Religion

Religion is unacceptable as a criterion for recruitment except in cases where employees have to perform religious functions as part of the job requirement.

pirate:

3Boys:

Whatever.


Nowhere did you say in THIS post that FCBC is unjustified in seeking a judicial review. I think you need to make up mind where FCBC have erred here, apart from trodding on your toes.

By the way, if FCBC wins, and I don't believe they will, that's called justice being served. Why would you have an issue with that?

I have already said earlier why FCBC is unjustified in seeking a judicial review. No point repeating.

People do realize that hiring lawyers to make an application for judicial review is not a luxury a low level admin worker on less than $2,000 a month can afford over a dispute of a few thousand dollars, right?

The Employment Act was supposed to provide a simple avenue of redress for low and middle level employees. Hence the provision that the Minister's decision is final. If people have no issue with loaded employers for whom money is no object having three bites at the cherry (Minister, High Court and Court of Appeal), while the little people realistically only have one, then I suppose everything's hunky dory.

Yeah... people keep reminding me that for organizations like FCBC, money is no object.

3Boys:

Whatever.


Nowhere did you say in THIS post that FCBC is unjustified in seeking a judicial review. I think you need to make up mind where FCBC have erred here, apart from trodding on your toes.

By the way, if FCBC wins, and I don't believe they will, that's called justice being served. Why would you have an issue with that?

pirate:

3Boys:

I quote from wikipedia....


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusion_of_judicial_review_in_Singapore_law#cite_note-36

\"In Stansfield Business International Pte. Ltd. v. Minister for Manpower (1999),[36] an employee fired for incompetence accused the plaintiff company of unfair dismissal and made representations to the Minister for Manpower under section 14 of the Employment Act[37] to be reinstated. After investigating this claim, the Ministry came to the conclusion that the dismissal was made without just cause and recommended payment to the employee. Although section 14(5) of the Employment Act provides that \"the decision of the Minister on any representation made under this section shall be final and conclusive and shall not be challenged in any court\", the company applied for judicial review against the Minister's decision.[38]
The High Court held that the ouster clause in section 14(5) of the Employment Act was ineffective as there had been a breach of the rules of natural justice in the process by which the Minister's decision was reached.[39] In his judgment, Justice Warren L. H. Khoo stated that the \"broad principle\" in Anisminic governing the matter had been restated in the case of South East Asia Fire Bricks as follows:[40]
[W]hen words in a statute oust the power of the High Court to review decisions of an inferior tribunal by certiorari, they must be construed strictly... they will not have the effect of ousting that power if the inferior tribunal has acted without jurisdiction or \"if it has done or failed to do something in the course of the inquiry which is of such a nature that its decision is a nullity\": per Lord Reid at p. 171 [of Anisminic]. But if the inferior tribunal has merely made an error of law which does not affect its jurisdiction, and if its decision is not a nullity for some reason such as breach of the rules of natural justice, then the ouster will be effective.\"

Is FCBC acting in a total vacuum or in bad faith?

I can't see how.

I was going to leave this until after the judicial application gets thrown out, but since you want to start...

The highlighted part is where the problem with this particular application lies. Judicial review is not meant to \"clarify\" the law. It is not available even if the tribunal makes a mere error in law, particularly in relation to what FCBC claims is the issue - whether it is implied in the employment contract that EMA is misconduct in the context of employment.

And does the church expect the High Court to issue a certiorari (ie. quash it) against MOM's ruling in favour of the ex-employee without hearing from the ex-employee? That would be a breach of natural justice so far as the ex-employee is concerned, would it not? So, is the ex-employee a party to this judicial proceedings, or is she not?

And do you know what happens if FCBC succeeds in quashing it? The matter gets sent back to the Minister again. The High Court will not substitute its own decision for the Minister's, certainly not without hearing the ex-employee's side of the story.

So, make up your minds, is FCBC merely trying to \"clarify\" the law, or is FCBC actually challenging MOM, and ultimately dragging the ex-employee back into the fray as collateral damage?

3Boys:

I quote from wikipedia....


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusion_of_judicial_review_in_Singapore_law#cite_note-36

\"In Stansfield Business International Pte. Ltd. v. Minister for Manpower (1999),[36] an employee fired for incompetence accused the plaintiff company of unfair dismissal and made representations to the Minister for Manpower under section 14 of the Employment Act[37] to be reinstated. After investigating this claim, the Ministry came to the conclusion that the dismissal was made without just cause and recommended payment to the employee. Although section 14(5) of the Employment Act provides that \"the decision of the Minister on any representation made under this section shall be final and conclusive and shall not be challenged in any court\", the company applied for judicial review against the Minister's decision.[38]
The High Court held that the ouster clause in section 14(5) of the Employment Act was ineffective as there had been a breach of the rules of natural justice in the process by which the Minister's decision was reached.[39] In his judgment, Justice Warren L. H. Khoo stated that the \"broad principle\" in Anisminic governing the matter had been restated in the case of South East Asia Fire Bricks as follows:[40]
[W]hen words in a statute oust the power of the High Court to review decisions of an inferior tribunal by certiorari, they must be construed strictly... they will not have the effect of ousting that power if the inferior tribunal has acted without jurisdiction or \"if it has done or failed to do something in the course of the inquiry which is of such a nature that its decision is a nullity\": per Lord Reid at p. 171 [of Anisminic]. But if the inferior tribunal has merely made an error of law which does not affect its jurisdiction, and if its decision is not a nullity for some reason such as breach of the rules of natural justice, then the ouster will be effective.\"

Is FCBC acting in a total vacuum or in bad faith?

I can't see how.

h3ngh3ngl4h:

sushi my opinion is that this case is akin to stirring the hornet's nest. is this the start of a trend of referring religious matters to the judiciary to cast judgement?

pirate:

There has to be finality to dispute resolution. The Employment Act says in this case it is at the level of the Minister's decision.


From a closure point of view, be it at the Minister, the High Court or the Court of Appeal, what difference does it make at which level finality lies?

If people refuse to move on from a decision that they do not like, they will never find closure. Can closure only come from getting the outcome they want?