To Government: How to Have More Babies Like This?
-
Pregnant nurse says that after one month in new job...
I was sacked via SMS
By Genevieve Jiang
January 17, 2008
BARELY a month into her new job, Madam Cheryl Lee took no-pay leave for medical and personal reasons.
Madam Cheryl Lee, with the SMS that she got from SATA's human resource manager. Picture: KELVIN CHNG
She was also hospitalised for three days, followed by medical leave for more than a month.
The 25-year-old staff nurse, who was then five months' pregnant, had suffered complications.
During her medical leave, she received an SMS from her employer telling her that she had been sacked.
The reason, she alleged, was her pregnancy.
But her employer, the Singapore Anti-Tuberculosis Association (SATA), countered that the termination was fair because of her frequent absences from duty.
It also explained that it resorted to sending the SMS because Madam Lee would not return for counselling.
HEALTH REASONS
Said Madam Lee: 'How can they terminate my service because of health reasons? It's not fair.'
The first-time mother applied for the staff nurse position last October.
She was then four months' pregnant but did not declare it during the first interview.
At a second interview at SATA, she was briefed on her responsibilities and asked to go for a routine medical check-up. It was then that she declared her pregnancy.
Madam Lee, whose husband works in the airline industry, started work at SATA's Jurong Medical Centre on 15Oct for a monthly salary of $2,300.
Two days later, she was told that because she was still on three months' probation, she would not be entitled to maternity leave or medical benefits for conditions related to her pregnancy.
She thought the conditions were fair and agreed.
In October and November, she applied for no-pay leave to go for medical checkups and attend to family affairs. She cannot remember the number of times she did this.
She also had problems at work.
'During the week of 19 Nov, the clinic was very busy because half of the staff were out doing community projects such as health screenings.
'So I was basically on my feet almost all the time, seven hours a day.'
That week, she experienced abdominal cramps and mild vaginal bleeding. So she applied for no-pay leave again on 23 and 24 Nov.
Then on 28 Nov, at about 5am, Madam Lee woke up to find blood flowing down her leg.
As her husband was overseas, a relative took her to the emergency department of the KK Women's and Children's Hospital.
At about 9am, she said she received a call from her employer but was unable to answer because a doctor was attending to her.
CALL FROM CLINIC
Said Madam Lee: 'A while later, my employer called me again to ask me why I wasn't at work. It was then that I explained the situation to her.'
She was in hospital for three days and then given medical leave till 8 Dec. But on that day, she experienced a sharp pain running down her hip and left leg. She had trouble getting out of bed, and struggled to bend or stand.
'It felt like a stabbing pain down my leg. I had to take painkillers to ease the pain.'
Doctors explained that the pain in her leg was caused by the uterus pressing against a nerve running down her lower back and legs.
She was given painkillers and medical leave till 18 Dec.
She said: 'That week, I got a call from my company asking me to meet the human resource manager.
'When I asked her what it was about, she said she couldn't discuss it on the phone. I had a sinking feeling that it was bad news.'
Madam Lee said she couldn't make it as she was still on medical leave at the time.
She went for a follow-up check-up on 18 Dec, where her doctor again extended her medical leave to 5 Jan. She then SMSed her employer about the extension.
But on 19 Dec, Madam Lee received an SMS that she had been sacked.
The SMS from her HR manager said: 'In view of your health condition and safety of your baby, she (the clinic manager) thinks that it is better for you not to be working now. As the clinic is also short-handed, she has to employ another nurse not knowing when you can come back to work.
'A letter of termination will be sent to you by post today. Take care and have a smooth delivery.'
Madam Lee received a letter soon after, stating that she still owed SATA $85.18 for her period of absence.
She now plans to lodge a complaint with the Manpower Ministry.
She said: 'I'm not hoping for any compensation, but it's the principle of it that I'm disputing. It's just not fair.'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Company says: We fired her because...
THE Singapore Anti-Tuberculosis Association's chief operating officer Aaron Ng replied:
'Madam Cheryl Lee was employed as a staff nurse on 7 Oct.
Despite her pregnancy, we hired her. This is testimonial to our non-discriminatory human resource (HR) policies.
During her two interviews, she was told the job nature of a staff nurse, including having to stand for prolonged hours. As a former nurse, she was aware of the requirements.
Following SATA's HR policies, in accordance with the Employment Act, Madam Lee was placed on three months' probation.
The Act states that probational staff are not entitled to medical leave in the first six months of service, and would have to take no-pay leave for any absence.
Our terms are more favourable, restricting award of medical leave only for the first three months.
NOT ENTITLED
The Act also states that female employees are not entitled to maternity benefits unless they have served for more than 180 days.
The above terms were clearly stated in her employment contract and in a letter on medical conditions. Hence, Madam Lee's absence from duty was to be viewed as no-pay leave.
Madam Lee was absent from duty frequently since starting work on 15 Oct.
Up to 24 Nov, she did not inform the clinic manager as required, but instead SMSed her co-worker whenever she went absent.
When prompted, she informed the manager via SMS, avoiding direct communication. Her notifications were always late, resulting in the clinic staff or manager having to call her to find out if she was coming in.
During her two months' employment, she was absent for 33 days. Her absence was to be clocked as no-pay leave, and not medical leave, as she was on probation.
COLLEAGUES COVERED HER
Reasons for her absence, from the few occasions that we knew of, included those not related to her pregnancy. Colleagues had to cover her duties. Much time and effort was spent on managing her absence.
Madam Lee was absent from 1 to 18 Dec.
On 19 Dec, when the manager again received another SMS from her that her medical leave was extended to Jan, she decided to terminate Madam Lee's employment, as staff morale and clinic operation were badly hit by her absence.
In accordance with her employment contract and the Employment Act, two weeks' salary in lieu of notice was given upon termination. Unsuccessful attempts were made to contact her to ask her to return for counselling. When contacted eventually, she claimed to be unwell and could not oblige.
Therefore, a termination notice was sent by post to her residence, after an SMS to notify the same. SATA paid Madam Lee full salaries from 15 Oct to 30 Nov, despite her frequent absence.
Upon her termination, according to our HR policy and the Employment Act, her remuneration vs working days was re-computed. Her frequent absence resulted in an overpayment of more than a thousand dollars. After off-setting this against the two weeks' salary in lieu, she still owes SATA $85.18.
As a charity ruled by strict standards of corporate governance, we had to follow procedures and demand for return of the overpayment. However, if she has difficulty paying back, we can waive it out of goodwill.
SATA has always practised compassionate HR policies, granting confirmed staff full-pay medical leave for prolonged illnesses, and championing the re-employment of retired workers.'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ministry: More discrimination complaints from mums-to-be
Manpower Ministry (MOM) received 71 complaints in 2006 from mothers-to-be facing threat of dismissal.
Number up from 60 complaints in 2005, said ministry spokesman.
Its investigations found 33 out of 36 cases settled in favour of employees.
Employment Act states it is an offence to sack employee during maternity leave. Dismissal because of pregnancy also considered unfair.
MOM received atleast 180 employment-related discrimination cases between 2004 and 2006.
Panel formed in 2006 to stamp out discrimination at workplaces gave guidelines on conduct of job interviews and design of job application forms.
More than 500 employers, including civil service and various business organisations, have signed pledge to follow such fair employment practices.
Employees who feel they are unjustly dismissed have a month to appeal in writing to MOM to investigate the matter. -
although i cannot agree to SATA, she had not being honest initially
-
She obtained the job through fraud.Originally posted by Lin Yu:although i cannot agree to SATA, she had not being honest initially
While I sympathize with her situation, it is not the Employer's responsbility. -
The Act states that probational staff are not entitled to medical leave in the first six months of service, and would have to take no-pay leave for any absence.
Is this term reasonable? What kind of employment act is this? Is the MOM dumb or what?
Why is it that during the probation period, an employee is not allowed to take leave? Is an employee not allowed to have personal problems or become sick during the probation period? How can an employee have such planning beforehand like he/she has to know what will or will not happen during the period.
Employer can deduct the amount from any leave consumed if the employee quits or is fired during the period. If she is confirmed after the probation period and continued to work, then the leave taken during probation period is part of her entitlement. -
Originally posted by googoomuck:
Employment Act (Cap 91)
[b]The Act states that probational staff are not entitled to medical leave in the first six months of service, and would have to take no-pay leave for any absence.
Is this term reasonable? What kind of employment act is this? Is the MOM dumb or what?
Why is it that during the probation period, an employee is not allowed to take leave? Is an employee not allowed to have personal problems or become sick during the probation period? How can an employee have such planning beforehand like he/she has to know what will or will not happen during the period.
Employer can deduct the amount from any leave consumed if the employee quits or is fired during the period. If she is confirmed after the probation period and continued to work, then the leave taken during probation period is part of her entitlement.
[/b]
Sec 44(1) of the Act DOES state that one needs to be employed for a min of 6 months to be entitled to sick leave. I suspect that this is to protect the employer.
BUT Part IV of the Act does not cover employees who make more than $1600/month.
The person in question, by drawing $2300 is already not covered under this part of the Act and it cuts both ways: She's not entitled to its protection, but she's also not bound by its constraints.
So actually, SATA made a mistake by citing the Employment Act in this case... Mdm Lee would not have benefited from the protection in any case.
HOWEVER, by paying her more, Mdm Lee is also not bound by this constraint and would have been free to negotiate this condition. If she was not comfortable with it, she should not have accepted it.
In any case, I've encountered my fair share of MC-Kings and Queens... It is VERY trying on one's patience...
Also, it is a fact that she was absent for literally half the time (33 days out of 2 mths)... Operationally, this would have imposed an undue burden on her colleagues who have to cover her.
Bear in mind that just as she's entitled to fall sick, others are entitled to decent working conditions, somewhat normal hours and rest days too... Her frequent absence would have impinged on these conditions for her colleagues.
I think SATA did the right thing: If her health was not good and the work threatens her pregnancy, she should be asked to stop working. It is the responsible thing for an employer to do if they KNOW that they CANNOT change the working conditions in a way that would allow the staff to work safely.
If she die die want to work and kena serious problems how? Is she gonna blame SATA?
She ought to stay home, rest and only start working when she is in a more stable situation. This is to be fair to her, her unborn child AND her future employer. -
its to protect the employer's interest.. u know now why mncs love to setup offices in singapore as their asia region..
-
Not only this lah, ever wondered why you have to let them know your previous salary in your C.V ? Why the hell do we have to send them a photo ? Nothing to do with the job at all.......
-
why must state previous salary?Originally posted by kramnave:Not only this lah, ever wondered why you have to let them know your previous salary in your C.V ? Why the hell do we have to send them a photo ? Nothing to do with the job at all....... -
You ask themOriginally posted by Fireindahouse:why must state previous salary? -
beat around the bush..Originally posted by kramnave:You ask them
*beat**beat**beat* -
I'm not beating around the bush. I'm asking whether anyone ever wondered why there is a need for employers/agencies to ask details on things that are irrelevant to the job itself. Things like a photograph, previous salary etc and of course discriminatory insinuations like "female working environment".Originally posted by Fireindahouse:beat around the bush..
*beat**beat**beat* -
Suka Suka Sack people. What's the problem with these employer?
It seem like we employees have to take order from these bosses. They are over-protected. Where are the powerful union like other developed nation?
I agree with Kramnave. Employer do not have the rights to question us like a criminal.
Corporate world su*ks in here
-
now the plot thickens ....
She went to Zouk Out on MC day ? ...
http://www.asiaone.com/Business/News/Story/A1Story20080123-46348.html
Too sick to work, but...
NOT TOO SICK TO PARTY?
SHE had protested her dismissal by her employer, alleging that she was sacked because of health reasons.
But the day she was on medical leave, Madam Cheryl Lee went to one of Singapore's biggest beach parties.
The 25-year-old, who was then six months pregnant, was seen partying at ZoukOut at Sentosa's Siloso Beach on 8 Dec.
The party was attended by almost 23,000 people.
In the report, 'I was sacked via SMS' (The New Paper, 16 Jan), Madam Lee alleged that she was sacked by the Singapore Anti-Tuberculosis Association (SATA) last month because of health reasons.
MANY ABSENCES
Since she got the job as a staff nurse at SATA in Oct last year, she took several days of no-pay leave, was in hospital for three days, and on medical leave for more than a month because of complications to her pregnancy.
She showed copies of her medical certificates, from various dates between 28 Nov and 5 Jan, to The New Paper.
During her two months' employment, she was absent for 33 days.
Madam Lee had earlier claimed that on the morning of 8 Dec, she had experienced a sharp pain running down her hip and left leg. She claimed that she had trouble getting out of bed, and even struggled to bend or stand.
But on that same night, a friend, who declined to be named, spotted her partying at ZoukOut.
The friend, who claims to have known her for almost a year, told The New Paper: 'I saw her at ZoukOut with her husband and sibling. I was at the DJ Steve Aoki set and she was pretty close to the stage mixing with the crowd.
Former employer: We never knew if she was coming to work
MADAM Lee's prolonged absence from work without proper communication and her lack of commitment were cause for concern, said SATA's chief operating officer, Mr Aaron Ng.
And that is why she was terminated, he said.
'We were informally aware that not all her leave was related to pregnancy. It was extremely difficult to contact her. There was always uncertainty about whether she would turn up for work, which posed tremendous challenge to service planning,' he said.
He said that like any new staff member on probation, Madam Lee's performance was closely monitored, to gauge her suitability as a permanent employee.
He said: 'We were deeply concerned about her sense of responsibility and accountability, which are important qualities for a medical professional.'
Mr Ng said that SATA, as a charity, embraces a pro-family stance in employing a pregnant women.
He said: 'Many confirmed staff have been granted maternity leave. SATA also endeavours to support employment of retirees and the disabled.'
'I think her blatant disregard for her own personal safety and also lack of responsibility for her job is reproachable.'
The friend said Madam Lee was wearing a bikini at the time.
When asked, Madam Lee admitted that she had attended the party.
But she claimed that she had spent most of the time at the party just 'sitting around and eating'. She said she did not drink any alcohol.
She also stuck to her story that she was in pain that day.
But did she think it was irresponsible of her to take medical leave when she was clearly fit enough to attend a party?
Madam Lee said: 'It's true that I had pain in the morning, but I took Panadol and the pain eased. That's why I could go out at night.
'Besides, my husband had bought the tickets to ZoukOut in November and we didn't want to waste them as they were not cheap. I didn't drink that night, and we made it a short night.
'We reached there at 11pm and left at 2am.'
Madam Lee said she attended the party with her husband, brother and cousin.
ZoukOut tickets cost $58 each.
The friend told The New Paper that on the night of the party, Madam Lee 'appeared a bit tired, but didn't seem to be in pain'.
Another of Madam Lee's acquaintances, who was also at the party, alerted The New Paper to pictures of Madam Lee at ZoukOut.
Madam Lee had posted them on her Friendster and Facebook pages.
The acquaintance said: 'I feel that it is inappropriate...
'It was (also) very unfair of her to leave her colleagues at the clinic shorthanded.'
Something is wrong with this woman I think ......... who'd dare to employ her like that ? ......
and what the fark ! ... going chionging when she's 6 months pregnant ? .... what kind of mother is this ? .... tsk tsk tsk ....
-
If the witnesses are credible, then I say she deserves to be sacked.
Now that her picture is in the news, she's going to have a tough time looking for another job in the same nursing and medical health sector. That's very stupid. -
no need witness lah ... she posted pics of herself at zoukout on her own friendster and facebook pages ....Originally posted by googoomuck:If the witnesses are credible, then I say she deserves to be sacked.
this is call self pwnz'd ......
but honestly ... I don't really give a fark about her going to zouk out on her MC day .....
I care about her going out to chiong when she is SIX MONTH PREGNANT ! .....
with her husband somemore ! .... what kind of a couple is this ? .... makes you wonder what kind of parents they'll be ! ....
-
her own fault ........ and not just in nursing either ......Originally posted by googoomuck:Now that her picture is in the news, she's going to have a tough time looking for another job in the same nursing and medical health sector. That's very stupid.
this is a good lesson for everyone ...... before you cry foul in front of reporters .... make sure your own backside is wiped clean first .... -
I thought standard HR practice is for probation period of 6 months or even 1 year.
Staff subject to confirmation after probation period. Employer can release staff anytime during probation period. I wouldn't even call it sacking. It is just not passing the probation, so I thought. -
hahahah damn funny leh
as they say.. there are limits to genius but... STUPIDITY is boundless.
*slap forehead*
hahahah... -
... stupid woman... idiot!
... her underhanded act will further discredit genuine cases from now on...
... there are always people with dirty spoons to sour the whole pot of soup...