Employment Act Case Study: Sound Events Management Singapore

Based on a given case scenario (Appendix A), learners are to submit a report to cover the following:

1. Outline the background, scope and coverage of the Employment Act relating to the case study.
2. Assume that you are the MOM officer appointed to look into this case. Identify and explain any potential violations of the Employment Act, employment rules or guidelines. Comment with reference to relevant areas of the legislation, rules and concepts where applicable.
3. Provide at least THREE (3) recommendations on the company’s employment practices that will prevent future similar violations and promote harmonious employee-employer relationship.
4. Prepare a written report to the commissioner, covering the above points 1 to 3.

Report Format

A type-written report of not more than 1,800 words (Arial, Font 12) excluding cover page and appendices must be submitted individually. The report should consist of the following parts:

1. Cover Page – Include a cover page with the project title, name and admission number.
2. Introduction – Outline the background, scope and coverage of the Employment Act relating to the case study.
3. Issues Identified – Identify and explain any potential violations of the Employment Act, employment rules or guidelines. Comment with reference to relevant areas of the legislation, rules and concepts where applicable.
4. Conclusion and Recommendations – Suggest and explain at least THREE (3) recommendations on the company’s employment practices that will prevent future similar violations and promote harmonious employee-employer relationship.
5. Appendices – Sources of industry research data, articles, or any other supporting resources.
6. References – To follow APA style guidelines.

Sound Events Management Pte Ltd (SEM) is a local company known for its expertise in organising events of varying magnitudes. SEM started out managing local indie bands’ concerts in Singapore. Over the years, SEM had gained extensive experience and a proven track record working with the Singapore Sports Hub in organising concerts at the National Stadium.

On 22 February 2023, Coldplay declared their intention to perform a second concert in Singapore at the end of the year. SEM got its big break when it secured the contract as the main organiser of the concert following a rigorous tender process. The overwhelming demand for tickets led to the addition of two more concert dates.

However, securing such a high-profile event came at a challenging time for SEM. The company had been grappling with internal challenges, as several longstanding employees, including their sole Human Resources (HR) Manager, had resigned due to consistent late salary payments and unrealistic deadlines, which resulted in a toxic and subpar working environment. In response to the manpower crisis, SEM expedited the hiring process and was able to shortlist 3 potential candidates from Singapore. The employment contract was personally drafted by the CEO and his secretary was told to meet up with the 3 candidates to explain the employment terms. The contract was however, not explained to the candidates as the secretary was not HR trained and had poor understanding of the terms of employment. The terms reflected in the contract of service are as follows:

Monthly Basic Salary	$2,500, paid on 25th of every month
Meal Allowance	$3 for every 6 hours worked, capped at $100 a month
Rate of Overtime (OT) Pay	$10 per hour
No. of Working Days Per Week	5 days
No. of Working Hours Per Day	9 hours (including 1 hour meal break)
Probation Period	3 months
Annual Leave Entitlement	10 days

As SEM was severely understaffed, all 3 new employees – James, Elvin and Winnie, frequently had to work more hours than stated in the contract. They were each asked by the company to work an average of 80 hours overtime a month. Fatigue soon set in and this affected the worker’s performance. Missteps started to emerge, including promotional materials displaying incorrect concert dates. More concerning was the breach of fans’ personal data from the official event website overseen by SEM. A video also surfaced on social media showing this oversight, revealing that standard data security measures were neglected by the already overburdened SEM employees.

After the CEO learned of the news, the CEO quickly sent a message in a WhatsApp group chat on November 4 telling them not to turn up for work the next day. A HR specialist was engaged to conduct a Board of Inquiry (BOI) with the 3 ex-employees separately to take their statements. The newly hired HR specialist was also told to submit an investigation report within 3 days for the CEO, who would then address the relevant Ministries for the lapses. Here are the summarised statements from the 3 ex-employees.

Ex-Employee 1 – James

“We were scheduled for several shifts when we were unexpectedly informed our contracts had been terminated. I’m concerned because I was told that our contract was a contract for service which might not fall under the Employment Act’s protection. Is this correct? Additionally, I’m still waiting for my October salary and my overtime pay for September, which was 80 hours of overtime work.”

Ex-Employee 2 – Elvin

“We often worked 12-hour days, though our contracts only specified 9 hours. Our request for extra break time resulted in a meagre additional 10 minutes added to our break, which was also split into two 35 minutes breaks instead. This isn’t fair! The accumulated fatigue might have led to mistakes on our part. If one of us did make a mistake, I believe we should own up to it. However, terminating us without a thorough investigation jeopardises our future job prospects.”

Ex-Employee 3 – Winnie

“This is unacceptable. The company barely looks after its staff, and now we’re dismissed over unproven allegations of data leaks? We were overworked and frequently paid late. On November 4, a public holiday, I was scheduled for a pregnancy check-up but was recalled for an urgent matter at work. While at the office, I received a message from the CEO asking me to leave immediately, informing me I wouldn’t be compensated for the day and shouldn’t come in the next day. Although I did not inform the company that I was pregnant, I had missed my appointment out of a sense of obligation, and the need for stable income from this job especially with a child on the way. The company’s actions are deeply disappointing.”

At the end of the BOI, the HR specialist overheard the 3 ex-employees saying that they will be making a trip to Ministry of Manpower (MOM) the same day to lodge an official complaint.