X-SIA Man
-
Mr. Clement Louis A. Joseph was remanded at Queenstown prison in 1997; he received his termination letter from SIA, while he was there, his employer for 23 years.
According to the newspaper reports a fellow unionist had informed SIA (his employer) about his detention at the time and yet he lost his case each time. It seems that the person in detention must report the matter to the Employer. Is this really possible in each instance?
The latest High Court ruling by justice Woo acknowledges that Clement Joseph had a reasonable excuse for not turning up for work and yet again he lost his case.
I am mystified:
1) Is a person remanded allowed to contact the Employer / Family by phone while in detention?
2) Why is a fellow unionist statement to the Employer not recognized?
3) Is the Employment Act, section 13(2) not flexible in such cases where the employee is not capable of making known to the employer that he or she is unable to turn up for work? For instance if I am in a coma, how can I report to the employer?
Are our judges so naïve that they cannot interpret the Employment Act in a more humane manner???
I wish Clement Joseph will be successful in his next attempt at the court of appeal, otherwise we should all be wary as employees in Singapore! -
Poor chap, was he working too hard for the Opposition, or did he simply step into the wrong shoes, at the wrong time, against the wrong Union - NTUC perhaps ?
To think that he was cleared of the incriminating charges that were deemed to be unsubstantiated.
The SYSTEM is working against him - is there JUSTICE when you have a different label on your file (other then a WH) ?
From this Tuesday's edition of the Straits Times, he is conducting his own research in the archives of the Subordinate Court and the University of Singapore Library, if he should win his case at the Court of Appeals, he should be given some due recognition.
Today's Straits Time:-
Ex-SIA man keeps up 7-year fight over job
He's not giving up - even though he has lost one court battle after another in his bid to get back his airline post
By K. C. Vijayan
HE MAY have lost the latest battle in his seven-year dispute with former employer Singapore Airlines (SIA) for wrongful dismissal, but Mr Clement Louis Arokiasamy Joseph is not throwing in the towel yet.
Despite working 12-hour night shifts as a security guard, the 51-year-old spent his days in libraries reading up on the labour laws here and, based on what he has learnt, will take his chances with the Court of Appeal.
He looked up material in the Subordinate Courts and National University of Singapore law libraries as well as in the National Library archives, going all the way back to 1920.
What he found was that this is the first time the courts here are being asked to interpret a particular section of the Employment Act concerning grounds for dismissing employees.
So, he argued, it made sense that the Court of Appeal, the highest court in the land, should rule on the matter.
Mr Joseph sued SIA for wrongful dismissal after he was fired for not turning up for work on Feb 21, 1997. He was in jail then, and the airline knew this, he had argued.
When district judge Valerie Thean dismissed his claim last May, he appealed to the High Court.
Friday's High Court judgment, issued by Justice Woo Bih Li, ruled that section 13(2) of the Act required Mr Joseph to let his employers know of his absence, which he did not. So, his dismissal was not unlawful.
Mr Joseph claims that the closest the courts in this region have come to interpreting an equivalent of this section was in a 1997 Kuala Lumpur case.
'The clause tells you that you are deemed to have 'breached' a contract of service by not telling your employer you are not turning for work. It's not a provision which allows your employer to dismiss you,' he said.
Mr Joseph's battle started on June 10, 1997, when he was released from Queenstown Remand Prison - where he had been since Feb 18 because he could not afford the bail - after being acquitted of charges of corruption.
While he was in remand, he was told in a letter dated March 5, 1997, that his services as an inflight services supervisor were terminated from Feb 21 that year. He had been employed by SIA then for 23 years.
He said: 'I felt really down because so many friends who used to swarm around me like bees during the time I worked, were no longer there.
'These were people I'd known for over 23 years in the company and had had frequent lunch and coffee-shop talks with.'
The few who stood by him helped him initially with clothes, cash and some food. After that, the bachelor, who has 10 brothers and sisters, had to fend for himself.
He took a job as a dishwasher, moved on to be a salesman and finally became a security guard.
He sued for unlawful dismissal in November 1997 and appeared in different courts at least a dozen times on related issues. He appealed to the High Court last October.
He brought in lawyers B. Ganesh and S. Jeyapalan then, because the 'e-filing procedures were beyond me'.
Though disappointed with the High Court ruling, the one-time unionist is hopeful, as Justice Woo acknowledged in his judgment that Mr Joseph had a reasonable excuse for not turning up for work.
Said Mr Joseph: 'I started off as a carpark attendant and worked my way up to in-flight services officer over the 23 years. My dream is to be allowed to continue in SIA and retire in career-like manner.'
It is not impossible, he added, claiming that SIA once re-employed a former pilot who served a jail term for being a road bully.
'I've produced good performance and good conduct, and I'm now being faulted on form, not substance, in not having taken steps to inform the company about my whereabouts while I was in prison.'
And if the next attempt at the Court of Appeal fails?
'I'll have to hold two jobs, day and night, to make up for my financial losses from the much reduced salary I am earning now.'
So he was a Union Activist representing the Airline Workers. -
Originally posted by Atobe:
huh?
Poor chap, was he working too hard for the Opposition, or did he simply step into the wrong shoes, at the wrong time, against the wrong Union - NTUC perhaps ?
To think that he was cleared of the incriminating charges that were deemed to be unsubstantiated.
The SYSTEM is working against him - is there JUSTICE when you have a different label on your file (other then a WH) ?
From this Tuesday's edition of the Straits Times, he is conducting his own research in the archives of the Subordinate Court and the University of Singapore Library, if he should win his case at the Court of Appeals, he should be given some due recognition.
Today's Straits Time:-
[b]Ex-SIA man keeps up 7-year fight over job
He's not giving up - even though he has lost one court battle after another in his bid to get back his airline post
By K. C. Vijayan
HE MAY have lost the latest battle in his seven-year dispute with former employer Singapore Airlines (SIA) for wrongful dismissal, but Mr Clement Louis Arokiasamy Joseph is not throwing in the towel yet.
Despite working 12-hour night shifts as a security guard, the 51-year-old spent his days in libraries reading up on the labour laws here and, based on what he has learnt, will take his chances with the Court of Appeal.
He looked up material in the Subordinate Courts and National University of Singapore law libraries as well as in the National Library archives, going all the way back to 1920.
What he found was that this is the first time the courts here are being asked to interpret a particular section of the Employment Act concerning grounds for dismissing employees.
So, he argued, it made sense that the Court of Appeal, the highest court in the land, should rule on the matter.
Mr Joseph sued SIA for wrongful dismissal after he was fired for not turning up for work on Feb 21, 1997. He was in jail then, and the airline knew this, he had argued.
When district judge Valerie Thean dismissed his claim last May, he appealed to the High Court.
Friday's High Court judgment, issued by Justice Woo Bih Li, ruled that section 13(2) of the Act required Mr Joseph to let his employers know of his absence, which he did not. So, his dismissal was not unlawful.
Mr Joseph claims that the closest the courts in this region have come to interpreting an equivalent of this section was in a 1997 Kuala Lumpur case.
'The clause tells you that you are deemed to have 'breached' a contract of service by not telling your employer you are not turning for work. It's not a provision which allows your employer to dismiss you,' he said.
Mr Joseph's battle started on June 10, 1997, when he was released from Queenstown Remand Prison - where he had been since Feb 18 because he could not afford the bail - after being acquitted of charges of corruption.
While he was in remand, he was told in a letter dated March 5, 1997, that his services as an inflight services supervisor were terminated from Feb 21 that year. He had been employed by SIA then for 23 years.
He said: 'I felt really down because so many friends who used to swarm around me like bees during the time I worked, were no longer there.
'These were people I'd known for over 23 years in the company and had had frequent lunch and coffee-shop talks with.'
The few who stood by him helped him initially with clothes, cash and some food. After that, the bachelor, who has 10 brothers and sisters, had to fend for himself.
He took a job as a dishwasher, moved on to be a salesman and finally became a security guard.
He sued for unlawful dismissal in November 1997 and appeared in different courts at least a dozen times on related issues. He appealed to the High Court last October.
He brought in lawyers B. Ganesh and S. Jeyapalan then, because the 'e-filing procedures were beyond me'.
Though disappointed with the High Court ruling, the one-time unionist is hopeful, as Justice Woo acknowledged in his judgment that Mr Joseph had a reasonable excuse for not turning up for work.
Said Mr Joseph: 'I started off as a carpark attendant and worked my way up to in-flight services officer over the 23 years. My dream is to be allowed to continue in SIA and retire in career-like manner.'
It is not impossible, he added, claiming that SIA once re-employed a former pilot who served a jail term for being a road bully.
'I've produced good performance and good conduct, and I'm now being faulted on form, not substance, in not having taken steps to inform the company about my whereabouts while I was in prison.'
And if the next attempt at the Court of Appeal fails?
'I'll have to hold two jobs, day and night, to make up for my financial losses from the much reduced salary I am earning now.'
So he was a Union Activist representing the Airline Workers.
[/b]
-
After reading the Straits Times article, it was mentioned very briefly that he was a UNIONIST while working in SIA.Originally posted by oldbreadstinks:huh?
Was he a pain in the management's butt, while being a unionist when employed by SIA ?
Did he challenge the SIA Board that include the Sec-General of NTUC, who is also a Minister without Portfolio in the Prime Minister's Office ?
Watch where and who you rub against ? -
ok i think i understand where you're pointing atOriginally posted by Atobe:After reading the Straits Times article, it was mentioned very briefly that he was a UNIONIST while working in SIA.
Was he a pain in the management's butt, while being a unionist when employed by SIA ?
Did he challenge the SIA Board that include the Sec-General of NTUC, who is also a Minister without Portfolio in the Prime Minister's Office ?
Watch where and who you rub against ?