Surbana Jurong – Termination, Dismissal or Retrenchment?

The terminating of 54 staff, I presume are Singaporeans, just one week before the Chinese New Year is very badly executed. Some are calling this act as callous, lack of compassion, inconsiderate, heartless and right down insensitive. The 54 staff, assuming many will be celebrating Chinese New Year, will not be celebrating and their families as well. What a cruel timing!

The social media is angry. Many are questioning if this is actually a retrenchment in disguise to avoid paying retrenchment benefits. The case is now being handled by the MOM.

From a HR perspective, the first question arising is the termination, a management right to terminate employees without reason, just like an employee’s right to resign without the need for any reason, or is this something else? The media reported that Surbana Jurong said the employees were terminated for poor performance. This immediately raises a red flag in HR practices.

Before an employee is terminated for bad performance, it is only fair that the employee would be put on notice that his performance is unsatisfactory. The management is duty bound to inform an employee that his performance is not acceptable and given a chance to explain and to improve. This is not only proper but also ethically and morally a right thing to do. Employers cannot sack an employee overnight, like springing a surprise, without letting the employee know that his performance is a problem and a sacking is on the card if he does not improve.

Has Surbana Jurong management done the due diligence and process to talk to the employees, counsel the employees, telling them of their shortfalls, how to improve to meet management’s expectation and to buck up? In all good HR practices, the employees must be given a chance to know what is coming, to know that they must improve and sacking is ultimately done if the employees still did not improve after counseling and warnings by the management.

Another point to clarify, what were the performance records of the sacked employees? Were they good, satisfactory or consistently bad? If the sacked employees had been consistently bad, then management would have a better case of sacking them, but still must go through the due process of trying to get the employees to improve prior to their sacking. Were the employees given any warning letters earlier?

I did not have full details of the employees’ performance and unable to comment on whether the sacking is properly conducted. One thing for sure, once the management confirmed that the employees were terminated due to performance, it is dismissal or termination due to bad performance. There is thus a requirement to go through the whole process of counseling and warning letters etc before the firing. This is not only good HR practice, it is also a requirement by MOM and ethical and humanly to do so.

As a govt linked company, Surbana Jurong and all GLCs have a responsibility to set a good example, to follow good HR practices for others to follow.