SINGAPORE: Last week, Dyson Singapore employees were asked to “pack and leave” as the company carried out unexpected layoffs, drawing immediate criticism from the union representing its workers for the one-day notice retrenchment.
According to Channel News Asia, analysts said that while the company abided by the law, how the retrenchment was handled may have harmed Dyson’s reputation.
Professor Lawrence Loh from the National University of Singapore (NUS) Business School pointed out: “It is not just about the letter of the law, but the spirit of being a good employer. The company needs to upkeep its broader reputation.”
Employees were probably taken by surprise, as Dyson had stated in July that job cuts in Britain would not directly affect its Singapore office.
Professor Loh explained that Dyson’s statement at the time was accurate, as the company had no plans for layoffs then. However, the announcement was abrupt, with just 24 hours’ notice, a single email, and one meeting before employees were let go.
With just one day’s notice, the union could not engage with the parties involved or explore alternative approaches to managing the layoffs.
Professor Loh noted that Dyson should not have “skimped on this last mile,” especially given the “fanfare” when the company relocated its headquarters to Singapore from the UK in 2022.
Singapore’s Ministry of Manpower (MOM) stated that the notice period provided to the United Workers of Electronics & Electrical Industries was negotiable since the laid-off employees were not unionised.
The union said that affected workers received compensation of one month’s pay for each year worked. However, they expressed concerns about a lack of information on which employees were affected and whether there was a cap on the severance packages.
Dyson stated that it had “respectfully informed” the union in advance and complied with MOM’s guidelines. However, Professor Loh pointed out that the optics in Singapore don’t look good and that Dyson’s overall reputation as a consumer brand could be affected.
Assistant Professor Jared Nai from the Singapore Management University (SMU) said that Dyson might have opted for a shorter notice period and less communication with the union for “business reasons that only the company can answer.”
He warned that such actions could harm employee morale and the firm’s reputation among potential recruits.
“These actions harm the morale of its current employees and the reputation of the company with future potential employees, but presumably, it determines the tradeoff to be beneficial for its purposes,” he said.
Dr Chew Soon Beng, a senior associate at Nanyang Technological University (NTU), explained that the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) seeks prior notice of retrenchments not to interfere with management decisions but to assist affected workers in finding new jobs or offering other support.
As someone who has written about unionism and labour policy in Singapore, he added that the Singapore National Employers Federation could also have a role in this matter, as companies might feel a stronger connection to the federation than to NTUC and MOM.
The electronics workers’ union has since escalated Dyson’s case to MOM, marking the second foreign company this year to come under scrutiny for its retrenchment practices.
Earlier in January, the Food, Drinks, and Allied Workers Union raised concerns with MOM regarding Lazada’s layoffs, which occurred without notifying the union.
Despite these issues, analysts believe the situation doesn’t indicate a broader problem among foreign companies in understanding Singapore’s system, where unions, employers, and the government collaborate.
Professor Loh noted, “I don’t think it’s a systemic problem. It’s case by case.”
According to Assistant Professor Nai, domestic companies have also faced criticism for mishandling retrenchments, such as Surbana Jurong, owned by state investment firm Temasek Holdings, which dismissed 54 workers in 2017 and labelled them as “poor performers.”
While Singapore’s tripartite system is unique, analysts believe that foreign companies understand they must operate in a manner acceptable to the country they are based in.
Dr Chew from NTU pointed out that in other countries, the relationship between labour unions, the government, and company management is often adversarial. However, he noted that in Singapore, “NTUC is not a traditional union.”
He added that it collaborates with the government and employers to improve the competitiveness of the Singapore economy.
Assistant Professor Nai added that foreign firms often need guidance on tripartism when starting operations in Singapore. However, he acknowledged that these companies typically conduct their own research to understand employment laws and norms.
Professor Loh said that companies are informed about the policies and laws when they establish operations in Singapore, but they should be able to navigate this independently. He noted, “it’s not rocket science,” as all information is available on the web.
He added, “You don’t need somebody to hand-hold you to say, ‘My dear, this is tripartism’.” /TISG
Featured image by Depositphotos