Asia-Pacific Employee Relations Update May 2010

Significant amendments to impending Korea industrial relations laws
Guidelines released on the re-employment of older workers in Singapore
UK Employment Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear Hong Kong flight attendants’ age and race discrimination claims
Dismissed Hong Kong pilots awarded HK$61 million in damages and compensation
Singapore Court of Appeal awards damages to foreign worker and criticises employer’s ‘nonchalant’ approach to employee safety
Regulation of remuneration practices in the banking sector and beyond, across Asia-Pacific

Significant amendments to impending Korea industrial relations laws

In our November 2009 edition of the Asia-Pacific Employee Relations Review,¹ we reported on the Korean Labour Minister’s announcement that certain legal provisions with a significant effect on labour unions and employers with unionised workforces would come into effect in early 2010.

On 1 January 2010, the Korean National Assembly passed a bill containing significant amendments to those provisions, and setting out the timetable for implementation in 2010 and 2011.

Background

The provisions in question were in fact enacted 13 years ago but were not put into effect, due to strong union opposition. The provisions deal with:

1. prohibiting employers from paying remuneration to full-time union officials (currently this is permitted), and
2. giving legal permission for multiple unions to be established at a single worksite (currently each enterprise may legally only have one trade union).

Amendments and implementation timetable

The prohibition on employers paying remuneration to full-time union officials will come into effect on 1 July 2010. Hence, full-time union personnel will no longer be permitted to receive remuneration from employers. However, pursuant to the recent amendments, a new system will come into effect, which provides for ‘paid time-off’ for employees carrying out prescribed union-related functions, including consultation and bargaining with the employer, grievance handling and occupational safety activities, and the functions of maintaining and managing the union for the sound development of industrial relations. The total amount of ‘paid time-off’ that can be granted by an employer, and the number of employees who can share the time-off between them, are subject to prescribed limits, which are based on the number of union members in the business.

The ability for multiple unions to be established at a single worksite will come into effect on 1 July 2011. However, the amendments provide that if multiple unions are established, then the employer may require the unions to establish a single window for bargaining. In this case, the unions must decide upon the bargaining representative and, if they cannot agree, then the majority union will act as the representative union. The representative union will be authorised to sign collective agreements on behalf of all unions involved in bargaining.

Implications for employers

It is expected that the implementation of the new provisions will lead to disputes between management and unions. It is therefore important that employers are familiar with the detail of the new provisions.

Employers will also need to prepare themselves for the provisions coming into effect, including:

1. Identifying any full-time union officials currently receiving remuneration from the company, and preparing for the prohibition that will come into effect on 1 July 2010. This is likely to involve discussions with the union regarding whether such officials will continue in a full-time capacity, and hence be remunerated by the union rather than the employer, or whether the officials will be full-time employees of the company and permitted to take paid ‘time off’ within prescribed limits in order to perform permitted union activities as prescribed by the legislation.
2. Putting in place a strategy to deal with the possibility that multiple unions may seek to represent employees on site from 1 July 2011, including considering whether multiple bargaining channels are desirable, or whether the employer would insist on a single bargaining channel in such a scenario.

This article was written by George Cooper, Practice Leader and Celia Yuen, Senior Associate, Freehills Workplace Law & Advisory–Asia.

Guidelines released on the re-employment of older workers in Singapore

The finalised Tripartite Guidelines on the Re-Employment of Older Employees were announced by the Singapore Minister for Manpower on 11 March 2010.

Background

As we reported in our February 2008 edition of the Asia-Pacific Employee Relations Review,² the Singapore government intends to introduce re-employment legislation to take effect on 1 January 2012. The Tripartite Committee on Employability of Older Workers was charged with the task of working through the practical aspects of the re-employment legislation and producing guidelines for employers. The guidelines were finalised following a round of public consultation in late 2009.

The guidelines are not legally binding. Rather, they are intended to assist employers and employees to prepare for the implementation of the re-employment legislation in 2012. The guidelines identify good re-employment practices that employers are encouraged to adopt in advance of the legislation coming into effect.

Re-employment practices encouraged by the guidelines

The guidelines identify good re-employment practices in the following areas:

Firstly, planning and preparing employees for re-employment:

• Employers should aim to re-employ the majority of their older employees. As a good practice, employers should offer re-employment contracts to all employees who reach retirement age, provided that they are medically fit to continue working and their performance is assessed to be satisfactory or above.
• Employers should engage employees (in consultation with unions for unionised companies) on re-employment issues as early as possible, not less than six months prior to re-employment.
• There should be flexibility in the job arrangements to be offered as part of the re-employment. Employers may wish to consider, for example, offering the same job, with appropriate adjustments in wages and benefits based on reasonable factors, offering a role with modifications to the existing job, or re-deployment them to a different job.

Secondly, preparing the re-employment contract:

• The re-employment contract should allow employers flexibility in re-employing older employees and at the same time, provide employees certainty and reasonable employment terms based on the value of the job and the employees’ years of service.
• Employers should offer re-employment contracts to eligible employees at least three months before retirement to allow sufficient time for the employees to consider the offer. The terms and benefits of re-employment contracts can be the same as those prior to re-employment, or different, subject to mutual agreement. 
• Employees who continue to be employed beyond retirement, without formal re-employment arrangements, could be considered as being re-employed with the same terms as those prior to re-employment. This provides a simple way for employers to continue to employ, or to re-employ, their employees beyond the statutory retirement age.
• Employers should offer employees three-year re-employment contracts, up to the age of 65. Alternatively, employers could re-employ employees on a term contract of at least one year, renewable up to the age of 65.
• Employers and employees are encouraged to be flexible in negotiating re-employment terms and benefits. Where appropriate, employers may make reasonable adjustments to the employment terms of re-employed employees, including wages and benefits. The guidelines contain detailed principles designed to assist employers with adjustments to wages, medical and other benefits.
• Employers and employees may exercise normal termination with notice in accordance with their employment contracts.

Thirdly, recognising the contributions of re-employed employees. The guidelines encourage employers, where appropriate, to continue to reward re-employed employees based on company and individual performance in the form of performance bonuses, long service benefits, gain-sharing incentives or one-off bonuses.

Finally, assisting eligible employees whom employers are unable to re-employ:

• Employers who cannot find suitable jobs for eligible employees should inform their employees as early as practicable, and at least three months before retirement.
• Employers should offer eligible employees a one-off Employment Assistance Payment (EAP) if they are unable to find suitable jobs for them. As a guide, an EAP of SGD$4,500–SGD$10,000 could be considered.
• The EAP should decrease over time as the re-employment obligation diminishes as the employee approaches the age of 65 years. For employees nearing age 65, the amount of EAP should not be greater than the salary payable for the remaining period of employment up to age 65.
• In addition to the EAP, employers are encouraged to provide outplacement assistance to help eligible employees whom they cannot re-employ find alternative employment.

Implications for employers

The guidelines, which will presumably form the basis for the 2012 legislation, will serve to highlight the different approaches currently taken by employers in Singapore to the treatment of employees who reach statutory retirement age (currently 62).

Many multi-national employers do not have any practice of adjusting employee terms and conditions upon reaching retirement age, or indeed requiring or encouraging employees to retire. Rather, employees are treated in the same manner for the purposes of wages, benefits and terms and conditions, regardless of their age. For employers in this category, the principles set out in the guidelines will be most unusual and may even be inconsistent with company policies and values around rewarding employees based on merit and not discriminating based on age.

For employers who currently do have a practice of compulsorily retiring employees or reducing wages and benefits upon reaching retirement age, the guidelines are even more significant. They illustrate the additional requirements that will be imposed upon employers when the legislation takes effect in 2012. Employers should therefore familiarise themselves with the guidelines and consider how they might be integrated into company policies and practices.

This article was written by George Cooper, Practice Leader and Celia Yuen, Senior Associate, Freehills Workplace Law & Advisory–Asia.

UK Employment Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear Hong Kong flight attendants’ age and race discrimination claims

In a judgment given in January 2010, the UK Employment Appeal Tribunal denied an appeal brought by British Airways (BA) and upheld the finding of the Employment Tribunal that BA’s Hong Kong resident flight attendants could pursue age and race discrimination claims under UK legislation.

Background

The claimants in the case were BA cabin crew, residents of Hong Kong and based in Hong Kong. In performing their duties, they flew between Hong Kong and many destinations, including London. Typically, a crew member would complete around 28 flight cycles between Hong Kong and London each year, including a 45 minute flight debrief and rest period of around 58 hours in London. Cabin crew also attended compulsory training on London—a six week course at the commencement of employment and annual two day update courses.

The claim

The basis of the discrimination claim brought against BA is that the claimants are challenging their forced resignations upon reaching the age of 45. The claimants allege age discrimination, and also race discrimination as the retirement ages for cabin crew in Britain and other offshore stations are set at 60–65. Age and race discrimination are both prohibited under UK legislation.

BA challenged the discrimination claim on the basis that the UK Employment Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the claims by Hong Kong residents whose main base was Hong Kong. BA failed at first instance, the Employment Tribunal holding that the employees had done their work ‘partly in Great Britain’ for the purposes of the relevant section in the legislation.

The jurisdictional finding

The UK Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the first instance decision, holding that a number of the duties performed by the cabin crew in London constituted ‘work’, such as duties performed upon landing of the aircraft and ensuring disembarkation of passengers, attending debriefing sessions at the end of the flight, and duties performed to prepare for and during take-off. What the cabin crew did in London was an integral part of each flight cycle, and the training requirements were absolutely essential. Consequently, the Employment Tribunal had been right to conclude that the cabin crew worked ‘partly in Great Britain’.

It has been reported that BA intends to appeal the decision to the Court of Appeal.

Implications for employers

The decision serves as a timely reminder for employers who have a globally mobile workforce that legal compliance issues are not limited to abiding by the laws in each employee’s main or home location. Where employees are undertaking some work in other jurisdictions as part of their duties, the employer should carefully consider and assess the risk of employment laws in that jurisdiction becoming applicable to that employee. In many cases, employers may need to ensure that they are simultaneously complying with employment laws in multiple jurisdictions.

This article was written by George Cooper, Practice Leader and Celia Yuen, Senior Associate, Freehills Workplace Law & Advisory–Asia.

Dismissed Hong Kong pilots awarded HK$61 million in damages and compensation

The High Court of Hong Kong has awarded some HK$61 million in damages and compensation to 18 pilots formerly employed by Cathay Pacific whose employment was terminated in 2001 during a bitter industrial dispute.

Background

In 2001, Cathay Pacific and the union representing its pilots were locked in a long running dispute over rostering practices and pilots’ entitlements. The union had advocated what was described as a ‘contract compliance’ or ‘WOE’ (withdrawal of enthusiasm) campaign by its pilots. This involved pilots sticking to the letter of their employment contracts, for example being completely uncontactable on their days off, being extremely cautious about fitness to fly on reserve duty days, taking the full 45 minutes preparation time before leaving home if called to duty, and arriving at the airport no earlier than the designated minimum of 80 minutes prior to departure time.

In mid 2001, Cathay Pacific management conducted an internal review of every pilot, identifying those who had attendance problems, disciplinary warnings, were considered to be unhelpful and uncooperative in the performance of their duties or to be difficult to deal with from a management perspective or in terms of relations with other staff. This review resulted in the pilots being ranked, and ultimately 49 were selected for termination of employment. In all cases, termination was with payment of three months’ salary in lieu of notice. No cause for dismissal was stated in any termination letter.

Court’s findings

The claimants (18 of the 49, the others having settled with Cathay Pacific for undisclosed sums) pursued claims for:

• statutory compensation under the HK Employment Ordinance for termination without a valid reason
• damages for breach of contract in that Cathay Pacific failed to comply with applicable contractual disciplinary procedures in relation to misconduct, and
• damages for defamation in relation to public comments made by Cathay Pacific representatives accusing the pilots of being unprofessional, of being bad employees, and of not caring for Cathay’s best interests or those of Hong Kong.

The claimants were successful on all three counts.

In relation to the unfair dismissal claim, Cathay Pacific argued that the pilots had been dismissed due to their conduct, being unusually high rates of calling in sick on duty or reserve days, their failure to discuss with management the reasons as to why such was happening, and their perceived negative attitude towards Cathay and fellow employees. The court rejected this argument and held that the predominant reason for the terminations by Cathay was the perceived participation by the pilots in union activities. The court awarded the maximum compensation under the Employment Ordinance (HK$150,000) to each plaintiff for the unfair dismissal.

In relation to the breach of contract claim, the court held that Cathay could not have it both ways—on the one hand to say it was a ‘no cause’ termination on notice, and on the other to make serious allegations of professional failings on the part of the pilots. The court found that since allegations of misconduct formed part of the motivation for the dismissals, the relevant contractual disciplinary procedure in relation to misconduct should have been followed. The court awarded each plaintiff one month’s pay as damages for the wages they would have received during the period that it estimated it would have taken for the disciplinary process to be followed.

In relation to the defamation claim, the court found that the statements made by Cathay Pacific were defamatory and that it had no defence of justification or qualified privilege. General damages of HK$3 million and aggravated damages of HK$300,000 were awarded to each Plaintiff in relation to the defamation.

Cathay Pacific have lodged an appeal against the decision.

Implications for employers

This case serves to remind employers of the importance of treading carefully in a dismissal scenario, particularly where unions and industrial disputes are involved. It illustrates that in Hong Kong:

• A court will look at all of the facts and circumstances to ascertain what is the ‘true’ reason for dismissal, and determine whether or not that reason is a valid reason under the Employment Ordinance.
• It is important for an employer to apply relevant contractual terms, in particular any disciplinary policy that may apply, as a pre-requisite to proceeding to termination. A court will not accept an employer ‘dressing up’ a termination as a not for cause termination on notice, when in truth the employer’s reason related to the conduct of the employees.
• Employers should be very careful about statements made to third parties regarding employees or former employees, as damages for defamation can be significant.

This article was written by George Cooper, Practice Leader and Celia Yuen, Senior Associate, Freehills Workplace Law & Advisory–Asia.

Singapore Court of Appeal awards damages to foreign worker and criticises employer’s ‘nonchalant’ approach to employee safety

The Singapore Court of Appeal has ordered a stevedoring company to pay SGD$250,000 to a former employee as damages for breach of the company’s duty to take reasonable care for his safety.

Background

The employee was a Malaysian national with a work permit to work in Singapore. While performing his stevedoring duties, a ladder that he was on detached from the hull of the vessel, causing the employee to fall some 10 metres and sustain severe injuries.

The employee commenced common law proceedings against the employer as an alternative to pursuing a claim for workers’ compensation under the no fault statutory scheme. The employee lost the case at first instance, and appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Key findings

The Court of Appeal referred to the common law duty imposed upon all employers to take reasonable care for the safety of their employees, and confirmed that this duty exists even if employees are delegated or deployed to work in premises not belonging to the employer.

In light of this common law duty, the court commented that if an employee’s work is of a nature that might give rise to safety concerns, employers are generally expected to perform a risk assessment exercise including, where possible, a physical inspection of the workplace prior to the commencement of work.

In this case, the court held that it had been clear from the outset that the employees would have to climb various ladders in order to perform their duties. The employer should have performed a risk assessment of the work premises before the work commenced, and provided the employees with additional safety equipment to minimise the risk of falling. The court found that it was clear in this case that the employer had done little to address the safety of the employees and ‘must now accept the consequences of its entirely nonchalant approach towards worker safety that has resulted in this unhappy and plainly avoidable accident’.

The court concluded that the employer was fully liable for the injuries that the employee suffered, and ultimately the employee was awarded SGD$250,000 in damages.

Implications for employers

This case reminds employers of their general duty to take reasonable care for the safety of their employees, and illustrates the potential serious consequences of a failure to abide by that duty, both to the employee injured as a result and also to the employer’s bottom line.

Notably, the obligations of employers with regard to safety have been further strengthened in Singapore since the employee in this case suffered the injury (in 2005) by the implementation of the Workplace Safety and Health Act on 1 January 2006. For more information about that legislation, and expansion of its coverage in 2008, refer to our September 2008 edition of the Asia-Pacific Employee Relations Review.³

In further developments, the Singapore government recently announced that from 1 September 2011, the Workplace Safety and Health Act will be extended to cover all workplaces in Singapore. Moreover, the Act will be amended later this year to strengthen the duties of care imposed on principals who outsource services to contractors. The amendments will make clear that whilst work can be outsourced, the duty to ensure the work is performed safely cannot.

This article was written by George Cooper, Practice Leader and Celia Yuen, Senior Associate, Freehills Workplace Law & Advisory–Asia.

Regulation of remuneration practices in the banking sector and beyond, across Asia-Pacific

In response to the magnitude of the recent global financial crisis and the unprecedented financial-sector bailouts by some countries, the G20 Summit in London on 2 April 2009 agreed on a number of matters concerning changes to the regulation of the financial system that addressed, amongst other things, the issue of executive remuneration and compensation schemes.

FSB Principles

The G20 endorsed the Financial Stability Board’s Principles for Sound Compensation Practices (FSB Principles) issued on 2 April 2009, which provide as follows:

• A company’s board of directors must be actively involved in the design, operation and monitoring of the compensation system for the entire organisation. 
• Staff engaged in financial and risk control must be independent and be compensated in a manner that is commensurate with their key role in the company.
• Compensation must be aligned with prudent risk-taking.
• There must be effective supervisory oversight and engagement with stakeholders, through disclosure of clear, comprehensive and timely information about compensation, and rigorous and sustained review by regulators.

To strengthen adherence to the FSB Principles, the Implementation Standards were issued in September 2009 and also endorsed by the G20. These standards include specific guidelines on remuneration structuring for executives; for example, that ‘a substantial proportion of variable compensation, such as 40 to 60%, should be payable under deferral arrangements over a period of years......A substantial proportion, such as more than 50%, of variable compensation should be awarded in shares or share-linked instruments.’ There are also specific guidelines on bonus clawback and proscription of guaranteed minimum bonuses, except in the context of hiring new staff, payable only in the first year.

Many countries in the Asia-Pacific region have taken steps to implement the FSB Principles into their domestic legal framework.

Implementation by countries in the Asia-Pacific region

Australia

In Australia, there has been increased scrutiny of executive remuneration, which has resulted in a strong commitment by the Australian Government to implement policies that promote transparent, accountable and responsible remuneration practices.

1  Legislative changes

The Corporations Amendment (Improving Accountability on Termination Payments) Act 2009 (Cth) (Amendment Act), which came into operation on 24 November 2009, has implemented measures which are intended to address concerns about director and executive termination benefits. This legislation is directed to director and executive termination benefits generally, not just in the banking sector.

Key features of the new regime include:

• Termination benefits for company directors and executives exceeding one year's average base salary are subject to shareholder approval. Previously the Corporations Act 2000 (Cth) (Corporations Act) allowed for termination benefits up to seven times a director’s total annual remuneration package before shareholder approval was required.
• The scope of the requirements relating to termination benefits is expanded to include senior executives or key management personnel of a disclosing entity, rather than only the company directors, as previously provided under the Corporations Act. 
• The definition of what constitutes a ‘benefit’ is broadened. 
• New regulations specifying what types of payments are, or are not, a termination benefit, and defining ‘base salary’. 
• The obligation to immediately repay unauthorised termination benefits. 
• The retention of the existing requirement for the giving of the benefit to be approved by a resolution passed at a general meeting. 
• Increases to the penalties for breaches of these provisions.

The Amendment Act is not retrospective and only applies to employment and service contracts which are entered into, renewed, extended or varied after the Amendment Act commenced on 24 November 2009.

2  Australian Prudential Regulation Authority

The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA), which is the prudential regulator of the Australian financial services industry and is responsible for regulating banks in accordance with the Banking Act 1959 (Cth), has extended its governance standards to implement prudential requirements on remuneration for authorised deposit taking institutions and general and life insurance companies.

The revised APRA governance standards came into effect on 1 April 2010 and require the boards of authorised deposit taking institutions to adhere to two conditions:

• To have in place a Remuneration Policy that covers various matters including alignment of remuneration arrangements with the long-term financial soundness of the regulated institution and its risk management framework, and explains who is covered by the policy.
• To establish a Board Remuneration Committee comprised entirely of independent directors with the requisite skills and knowledge to perform its functions which, at a minimum, are to review the Remuneration Policy periodically and make recommendations to the Board on the policy and the remuneration of executives.

APRA has also released a Prudential Practice Guide for remuneration, which has the objective of helping Boards comply with the extensions of APRA’s governance standards. Subject to meeting the prudential requirements as set out by APRA, regulated institutions have the flexibility to establish their remuneration arrangements in a manner that best suits each individual institution’s business objectives.

3  Productivity Commission

On 16 April 2010, the Australian Government responded to the Productivity Commission's final report on Executive Remuneration in Australia (Report). The Report examined Australia’s corporate law, considering the existing regulatory framework governing director and executive remuneration for companies that are disclosing entities under the Corporations Act, including shareholder voting, disclosure and reporting practices and reflected the FSB Principles.

In the Australian Government’s response to the Report it stated that it will:

• Introduce legislation this year to implement many of the Productivity Commission's recommendations, including the ‘two strikes’ proposal (ie if 25% or more of shareholders vote against the Board remuneration report on two consecutive occasions, then the directors must stand for re-election at an extraordinary general meeting of the company).
• Consider an additional proposal for clawback of bonuses paid to directors and executives in the event of a material misstatement in the company's financial statements, to ensure that, to the extent that pay packets are inflated by incorrect information, that money is returned to shareholders.

Singapore

The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) issued a consultation paper on 18 March 2010 (MAS Consultation Paper) that sets out proposals to amend the 2007 MAS Corporate Governance Framework. The MAS Consultation Paper only applies to locally-incorporated banks, financial holding companies and direct insurers.

The main focus of the MAS Consultation Paper is to emphasise the importance of the role of the company’s Board and the need for directors to be equipped with the appropriate skills and commitment to oversee the operations of financial institutions.

In respect of remuneration arrangements implemented by financial institutions, Proposal 8 of the MAS Consultation Paper incorporates the FSB Principles by proposing to amend the Corporate Governance Framework as follows:

• Including additional components and factors that the Remuneration Committee must consider in the design and operation of the remuneration framework.
• Requiring that the Remuneration Committee ensure that the remuneration practices of the Boards of Financial Institutions are aligned and accord with the remuneration framework.
• Requiring that the Remuneration Committee review the remuneration practices annually.
• Requiring that the Remuneration Committee have unfettered access to information of the Boards of Financial Institutions for the purposes of carrying out its responsibilities.

The consultation period closed on 19 April 2010 and MAS expects that if the proposals are adopted, implementation will take effect from the first Annual General Meeting of each impacted financial institution held on or after 1 January 2011.

Hong Kong

The Hong Kong Monetary Authority has issued a Guideline on a Sound Remuneration System (HKMA Guideline) which reflects the FSB Principles.

The main objective of the HKMA Guideline is to ensure that all Authorised Institutions’ remuneration systems are consistent with, and promote, effective risk management that does not create incentives towards inappropriate and excessive risk-taking.

Key areas covered by the HKMA Guideline include the following:

• The establishment and role of remuneration committees.
• The balance of the constituent elements in a remuneration package.
• The measurement of employees’ performance and the alignment of remuneration payouts to the time horizon of risks.

The HKMA Guideline also aims to strengthen market discipline through timely disclosure by the financial industry of information in relation to their remuneration systems.

The HKMA has stated that the Boards of the Authorised Institutions should promptly arrange for a review of their institutions' remuneration systems and take action to bring them into line with the risk management principles set out in the HKMA Guideline by the end of 2010.

Japan

Japanese Company Law (JCL) requires listed companies to disclose basic information about their corporate governance systems in their securities reports.

The Financial Services Agency (FSA), which is responsible for overseeing the banking, securities and exchange, and insurance sectors in Japan, implemented amendments to the JCL which came into effect on 31 March 2010. These amendments require listed companies to disclose the remuneration of Directors and statutory auditors in their securities report as follows:

• For each of their directors/statutory auditors whose remuneration for the relevant fiscal year is JPY 100 million or more, the amount of remuneration and his/her name, and a breakdown by the type of payments (eg, salary, bonus, stock option, and retirement payment). If a director/statutory auditor of a company is also a director/statutory auditor of any of the major subsidiaries of the company, the remuneration amount he/she has received from such subsidiaries must also be added to the amount of the remuneration he/she has received from the company.
• The total amounts of remuneration paid respectively to inside directors, outside directors, inside statutory auditors, and outside statutory auditors, and a breakdown by the type of payments for each class.
• An explanation of the company’s remuneration policies for its directors/statutory auditors, and the way they are decided, if such policies are put in place.

Implication for employers

All employers, but particularly those in the banking and financial sectors, should immediately review their remuneration systems and policies to ensure compliance and consistency with applicable laws and standards.

This article was written by George Cooper, Practice Leader and Chanelle Taoi, Solicitor, Freehills Workplace Law & Advisory–Asia.

Endnotes

1. ‘Strong opposition from Korean unions to proposed implementation of laws’, Asia-Pacific Employee Relations Review November 2009
2. ‘Proposed introduction of re-employment legislation in Singapore’, Asia-Pacific Employee Relations Review February 2008
3. ‘Workplace health and safety developments in Singapore’, Asia-Pacific Employee Relations Review September 2008

More information

For information regarding possible implications for your business, contact