Latest news with #employeeRights
Independent Singapore
10-07-2025
- Business
- Independent Singapore
S'porean worker earning S$2.4k claims company does not reimburse transport expenses for work-related deliveries
SINGAPORE: One Singaporean employee took to social media to share that his company has not been reimbursing him for transportation costs he paid out of pocket while delivering items for work. In a post on the r/askSingapore forum, the employee revealed that he graduated with a degree in Business Management and currently works as a Business Operations/Project Coordinator. However, his role has since expanded to include admin work, procurement, accounting, coordination, and even courier duties. 'On days when I'm tasked to collect or deliver items from clients and vendors, I use public transport, which I don't get reimbursed for even when the location is out of the way or involves multiple stops,' he explained, adding that this has been going on for a year. He also shared that although his company has a four-day workweek, he is expected to do overtime twice a week and remain contactable even on his days off and medical leave. To make matters worse, his gross monthly salary is only S$2,400. This year, he said, there was no salary increment, no annual wage supplement (AWS), and no bonus. All he received was a $10 Chinese New Year ang pao and one additional day added to his already limited seven-day annual leave entitlement. Fed up with the arrangement, he asked the community: 'Is this normal or too toxic for an SME? Is it time to jump? What if the grass isn't actually greener on the other side? Would appreciate any advice, especially from anyone who's been through something like this or even worse.' 'You are being exploited.' Shocked by the extreme working conditions and low pay, many urged the employee to leave his job. One Singaporean Redditor said, 'At this point, any patch of grass anywhere else is greener than yours…. You already know what to do!' Another commented, 'Just leave, dude… You are underpaid and doing multiple roles. You are being exploited. And you only have 7 days AL?' A third shared, 'I'm also working in an SME, and my starting pay is at least S$1k more. Mine is considered a 5-day workweek, but I don't have to work OT, and my AL is twice yours. Your company is offering too little, but try to find another job before resigning. Don't leave without having another offer secured.' See also Lana Cake Shop sees hope as son steps in Do employers need to cover transport expenses? Yes, if the travel is work-related. According to the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), an employee's basic salary does not include travel allowances or reimbursements for expenses incurred while carrying out official duties, such as making deliveries or attending off-site meetings. These costs are considered separate and should be borne by the employer. Read more: 'It feels kind of late': Woman says she feels behind in life for only starting to travel in her 30s Featured image by freepik (for illustration purposes only)
RNZ News
09-07-2025
- Business
- RNZ News
Uber court case: 'What we want is minimum entitlements'
The Supreme Court has been told that Uber's arguments against drivers being employees are "fairytales". Photo: AFP Uber driver's contracts were "repressive" and could be altered "at the stroke of a pen", lawyers for E Tū and First Union have told the Supreme Court in Wellington. Uber is appealing after losing a previous appeal against a landmark Employment Court decision in 2022, where four Uber drivers were granted workplace protection. This could give the drivers employee benefits such as leave entitlements, minimum wage and holiday pay. Counsel for the drivers Peter Cranney said they were seeking fundamental "human rights" in relation to the work they did for the company. "What we want out of it is minimum entitlements and we also want the right to unionise and to organise, because that's fundamental to human rights in any country such as ours and there's thousands of people that don't have it," Cranney said. Cranney told the court that Uber's arguments against drivers being employees were "Jack and the Beanstalk, fairy tales". He said courts overseas had ruled against the company's assertions of a contract between drivers and passengers - independent of Uber - and Uber's lack of control over drivers, and called them "fictional". "The passengers send a request to Uber and Uber doesn't say 'yes, I'll send a taxi', Uber sends a price and you accept it as the passenger. "It's nothing to do with the driver. The contract is formed at that point," Cranney said. Cranney said driver's pay and employment status could be instantly changed by the company "at the stroke of a pen". He said the contractual relationship between Uber and the drivers was "repressive" "It allows the engager [Uber] to do anything at all it wishes to do. It is a total surrender of all contractual power to Uber. "The driver has no control over the rider driver contract. It's not really a contract, it's a rule written by Uber. Uber controls the entire contractual relationship," Cranney said. Cranney highlighted an example in 2016 when the company unilaterally lowered fare prices in Auckland and Wellington by 20 percent - drastically altering the income drivers in the area were able to achieve. He went on to argue the company's points and level systems, which offered benefits to drivers who attained high levels of acceptance of jobs - at times dictated by the company - and who received low levels of complaints, constituted a degree of control greater than a traditional employer would exercise. "If you fall below 4.7 in your behaviour, through a system which they totally control... you're in big trouble. "You must have almost perfect behaviour or at least face the possibility of very serious consequences - if the car was smelly or wet or you said something out of kilter. But most importantly you must work these hours to get the points - after midnight and so on," Cranney said. He described the practise as an "intense form of control" and a "classic form of subordination". Yesterday counsel for Uber outlined their arguments behind the assertion drivers were not employees in the terms dictated by the Employment Relations Act (ERA). They said the Employment Court and the Court of Appeal had erred in their interpretation of the ERA in determining that drivers were employed to do work for hire or for reward while they were logged into the Uber app. They said drivers acted as independent providers of transportation services to "riders" and "eaters" with whom they entered into contracts using the app provided by the Uber companies. Uber's lawyers argued drivers had the freedom to work when and where they wanted using the app, and were also free to engage in other employment opportunities as a result of the arrangement. Counsel for the company told the Supreme Court drivers were fully aware of the contractual relationship between themselves and the company when they signed up to Uber. This morning lawyer Paul Wicks told the court drivers were in control of important business decisions in a manner not typical of an employee situation. "They decided whether, when, where and for how long to drive or whether to do other work instead. "They also had the ability to - and did - make business decisions around assets, business costs and organise their tax affairs. "Uber accepts that drivers did not have input into the structure but the drivers choose to accept and use it. They entered into a service agreement with knowledge of what the deal was and acted accordingly," Wicks said. The hearing is continuing this afternoon. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Bloomberg
08-07-2025
- Business
- Bloomberg
UK Moves to Ban NDAs Used to Silence Victims of Workplace Abuse
The UK is moving to ban employers from using non-disclosure agreements to muzzle workers who have been the victims of misconduct on the job. The provision is set to be added to the broader employee-rights legislation being advanced by Prime Minister Keir Starmer's government. It would void existing NDAs used by businesses to silence employees who were subject to sexual harassment or discrimination and allow witnesses to speak out without risk of being sued, the government said in a statement.
Bloomberg
07-07-2025
- Politics
- Bloomberg
UK Is Moving to Ban NDAs to Hide Misconduct, Guardian Reports
The UK government is moving to ban employers deploying nondisclosure agreements to muzzle workers who have been victims of misconduct on the job, the Guardian reported on Monday. Under the reforms being prepared as part of broader employee rights legislation by Prime Minister Keir Starmer's government, any NDA that tried to head off complaints of workplace discrimination or harassment would be unenforceable, the newspaper reported.
CTV News
06-07-2025
- Business
- CTV News
Amid a renewed return-to-office push, experts outline what your options are
Bank towers are pictured in the financial district in Toronto, Friday, Sept. 8, 2023. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Andrew Lahodynskyj As the number of in-office days is set to increase for many of Canada's hybrid workers, return-to-office mandates are setting the stage for tension between employees and employers. Remote and hybrid work spurred by the COVID-19 pandemic is giving way to arrangements more closely aligned with traditional office norms now that labour market conditions have swung in companies' favour. Some of Canada's largest financial services firms, including several of the big banks, have said they will shift to four in-office days a week beginning in the fall. Employment lawyers say they are hearing from clients who don't want to lose one or more of their at-home days, but that companies are taking a harder line compared with a few years ago when a lower unemployment rate meant the market favoured job-seekers rather than their bosses. 'Now, it seems with economic uncertainty, employers have bigger leverage to basically impose unilaterally that kind of stuff and tell people, 'If you don't like it, you might as well go,'' Philippe de Villers, the chair of Chartered Professionals in Human Resources Canada, said in an interview. If you're in that situation, it may feel like you must choose between getting with the program or getting a new job. Though that may be true in many cases, experts say there are some other options. The basic choice One option for employees who don't want to return to the office is to look for another job, said Sunira Chaudhri, founder and partner at Workly Law, in an interview. 'Employees are considering career changes en masse, and as you can expect, those that are facing a stricter return to work protocol that do not align with that are, more likely than not, looking to jump ship and find a more flexible arrangement if they're simply not on board.' Return to office trends are more common with enterprise-level companies like banks and accounting firms compared with small businesses or ones in industries more concerned about retaining talent, Jon Pinkus, employment lawyer and partner at Samfiru Tumarkin, said in an interview. BMO, RBC and Scotiabank have all stated that more workers will be required to be in the office four days a week beginning in the fall, citing operational improvements and opportunities for collaboration. If an employee doesn't wish to leave their current position, and doesn't require an accommodation based on their family status or medical needs, they may need to comply with return-to-office mandates set by their employer. Family status Exceptions may need to be made based on family circumstances. Family status is an issue that may require accommodation, and one where employers must be 'pretty careful,' Chaudhri said, as many employees with young children have framed their days around childcare responsibilities. She said childcare responsibilities may need to be accommodated if they cannot be met by going back into the office on a full-time basis. For example, she said it may be difficult for someone to pick up a child from daycare if they are required to be in downtown Toronto until 5 p.m. 'If it's just impossible or unreasonable for an employee to make those types of changes, an employee can seek an accommodation with respect to family status, and say, 'I actually have to be in my neighbourhood at 4:30 p.m.,' as an example,' Chaudhri said. Medical accommodations If a person's medical needs have changed since they were in the office on a more full-time basis before 2020, Chaudhri said employers may need to consider medical accommodations. 'Employers need to be pretty aware and cognizant of the fact that accommodations might need to be a real part of the conversation of moving people back to work most of the time,' she said. Pinkus said medical accommodations are one of the most common issues he is seeing among clients regarding return-to-office mandates. He said employees may need accommodations for issues that may make it difficult for an employee to drive or sit for long periods. Other issues could include things like access to medication that may not be practical to bring into an office or needing to be close to a hospital or doctor. 'You do have an obligation as an employer to accommodate someone up to the point of what's called undue hardship,' Pinkus said. Undue hardship refers to a significant difficulty or expense related to accommodating an employee's needs or requests, according to Toronto-based law firm Achkar Law. Legal action Pinkus said if an employee started working from home full time during the COVID-19 pandemic, and their employer didn't communicate whether the arrangement was temporary or permanent, but is now trying to get them back into the office four days a week, it could be considered a breach of contract. However, he said that if there was clear communication by the employer that remote working wouldn't last forever, it would be more difficult for an employee to launch any legal action. Pinkus said employees considering refusing to return to the office should be 'very careful' because if their employer did have the right to compel a return to the office, it could be considered abandonment of employment — meaning the worker is not entitled to severance pay. 'If you're wrong about it, the consequences are quite serious.' Under certain circumstances, Pinkus and Chaudhri say a constructive dismissal may factor in. According to Pinkus, constructive dismissal can occur if an employer changes the fundamental term of their employment without sufficient notice and without the employee's consent. 'There is precedent for the notion that an employer can't simply take someone from a telecommuting role and put them in a non-telecommuting role without their permission,' he said. If an employer has stuck with a remote or hybrid working arrangement for a long time, then Chaudhri said some employees might say 'this is my new normal,' and the return to office constitutes a 'meaningful change to my employment.' 'In some cases, employees may allege that their contract of employment has been breached and seek wrongful dismissal damages,' she said. Chaudhri added that companies have been very systematic about slowly increasing in office days over time, which she thinks is in large part to avoid 'the likelihood of success of a constructive dismissal claim.' She said it is up to the employee to prove they have been constructively dismissed, which can be difficult. This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 6, 2025. Daniel Johnson, The Canadian Press
