Sammyboy RSS Feed
17-08-2014, 04:00 PM
An honorable member of the Coffee Shop Has Just Posted the Following:
HIGH COURT: EMPLOYEES WHO ARE "FORCED TO RESIGN" ARE NOT ENTITLED TO EXTRA COMPENSATION
.node-article .field-name-link-line-above-tags{float: right;}.node-article .field-name-ad-box-in-article {float: left;margin: 15px 15px 10px 0;}.node-article .field-tags{clear: both;} Post date:
15 Aug 2014 - 3:51pm
http://therealsingapore.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/lawrencewee_1_0.jpg?itok=a9nr21ne (http://therealsingapore.com/sites/default/files/field/image/lawrencewee_1_0.jpg)
Former Robinsons employee Lawrence Wee who claims to have been forced to resign from his position due to his sexuality, has had his appeal to the high court rejected.
The decision confirms that employees who are 'forced to resign' after their employer makes their work-life unbearable are not entitled to any compensation.
The court explained that this is the norm in cases of "constructive dismissal". The court explained that those who wish to receive compensation will need to prove that they had actual loss such as mental or emotional trauma as a result of their forced resignation.
=> Is the kangaroo saying that being forced to resign is a joyful experience??? :oIo:
This is different from cases of unfair dismissal as employer may be liable to pay damages and compensation if they fire workers unfairly.
For Lawrence Wee, he has been engaged in a legal battle with his former employer Robinsons after he claimed to have been unfairly forced to resign because of his sexuality.
The 40 year old had been working at Robinsons as the Assistant General Manager of Corporate Sales for about 6 years. He resigned from his position in August of 2012 following unbearable working conditions and discrimination that he faced due to his being gay.
The company did not fire him, but made his work conditions so difficult that Me Wee had no choice but to resign.
Despite not being officially terminated by the company, they gave him benefits as if he were sacked under his contract. They paid him 4 months of salary in lieu of notice plus paid him cash for unconsumed leave, amounting to 2 more months of salary.
However, Mr Wee brought legal action against them arguing that had he not been forced to leave, he could have continued to work there and so he wanted to claim future earning potential as well as other damages.
Last year, Robinsons successfully negated his claim before an assistant registrar and also in the High Court which pointed out that his contract only provisions for him to be given 2 months of salary which he already received.
The court also felt that Mr Wee's claims that he was discriminated because of his homosexuality were irrelevant to the case at hand.
He appeal to have this decision reviewed was thrown out by the high court in May and details about why were released last week.
In the court documents released, it was explained that there was no grounds for extra compensation for employees who are forced to resign. They are limited to what is provided for in their original employment contracts.
Mr Wee had failed to demonstrate that he had suffered direct losses due to the dismissal such as deep mental or emotional distress. He was also unable to show financial difficulties such as through the inability to find a new job based on his previous dismissal.
The court explained that there was no legal basis for him to receive any more compensation than what he already received as Robinsons had already abided by their contractual obligations by giving him over 2 months salary.
Mr Wee was also ordered to pay $20,000 in legal costs to Robinsons.
Lawyers explained that this decision is quite significant in placing a precedence on the situation in constructive dismissal cases, something which has not previously been fought a lot in court.
One point to note is that there is a possibility for dismissed employees to claim extra compensation if their future job prospects are damaged by their unfair dismissals.
Click here to view the whole thread at www.sammyboy.com (http://www.singsupplies.com/showthread.php?188071-High-court-Employees-who-are-quot-forced-to-resign-quot-are-not-entitled-to-extra-compensati&goto=newpost).
HIGH COURT: EMPLOYEES WHO ARE "FORCED TO RESIGN" ARE NOT ENTITLED TO EXTRA COMPENSATION
.node-article .field-name-link-line-above-tags{float: right;}.node-article .field-name-ad-box-in-article {float: left;margin: 15px 15px 10px 0;}.node-article .field-tags{clear: both;} Post date:
15 Aug 2014 - 3:51pm
http://therealsingapore.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/lawrencewee_1_0.jpg?itok=a9nr21ne (http://therealsingapore.com/sites/default/files/field/image/lawrencewee_1_0.jpg)
Former Robinsons employee Lawrence Wee who claims to have been forced to resign from his position due to his sexuality, has had his appeal to the high court rejected.
The decision confirms that employees who are 'forced to resign' after their employer makes their work-life unbearable are not entitled to any compensation.
The court explained that this is the norm in cases of "constructive dismissal". The court explained that those who wish to receive compensation will need to prove that they had actual loss such as mental or emotional trauma as a result of their forced resignation.
=> Is the kangaroo saying that being forced to resign is a joyful experience??? :oIo:
This is different from cases of unfair dismissal as employer may be liable to pay damages and compensation if they fire workers unfairly.
For Lawrence Wee, he has been engaged in a legal battle with his former employer Robinsons after he claimed to have been unfairly forced to resign because of his sexuality.
The 40 year old had been working at Robinsons as the Assistant General Manager of Corporate Sales for about 6 years. He resigned from his position in August of 2012 following unbearable working conditions and discrimination that he faced due to his being gay.
The company did not fire him, but made his work conditions so difficult that Me Wee had no choice but to resign.
Despite not being officially terminated by the company, they gave him benefits as if he were sacked under his contract. They paid him 4 months of salary in lieu of notice plus paid him cash for unconsumed leave, amounting to 2 more months of salary.
However, Mr Wee brought legal action against them arguing that had he not been forced to leave, he could have continued to work there and so he wanted to claim future earning potential as well as other damages.
Last year, Robinsons successfully negated his claim before an assistant registrar and also in the High Court which pointed out that his contract only provisions for him to be given 2 months of salary which he already received.
The court also felt that Mr Wee's claims that he was discriminated because of his homosexuality were irrelevant to the case at hand.
He appeal to have this decision reviewed was thrown out by the high court in May and details about why were released last week.
In the court documents released, it was explained that there was no grounds for extra compensation for employees who are forced to resign. They are limited to what is provided for in their original employment contracts.
Mr Wee had failed to demonstrate that he had suffered direct losses due to the dismissal such as deep mental or emotional distress. He was also unable to show financial difficulties such as through the inability to find a new job based on his previous dismissal.
The court explained that there was no legal basis for him to receive any more compensation than what he already received as Robinsons had already abided by their contractual obligations by giving him over 2 months salary.
Mr Wee was also ordered to pay $20,000 in legal costs to Robinsons.
Lawyers explained that this decision is quite significant in placing a precedence on the situation in constructive dismissal cases, something which has not previously been fought a lot in court.
One point to note is that there is a possibility for dismissed employees to claim extra compensation if their future job prospects are damaged by their unfair dismissals.
Click here to view the whole thread at www.sammyboy.com (http://www.singsupplies.com/showthread.php?188071-High-court-Employees-who-are-quot-forced-to-resign-quot-are-not-entitled-to-extra-compensati&goto=newpost).