SINGAPORE: The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) has defended Dyson’s retrenchment exercise in Singapore, following the company’s layoffs that occurred earlier in October 2024.
In a statement to local media on Saturday, MOM confirmed that Dyson submitted the mandatory retrenchment notification within five working days of informing affected employees, which the ministry stated was “on time” according to existing regulations.
Despite this, Dyson’s handling of the retrenchment, including the limited notice given to employees and its engagement with the union, has attracted significant public and union criticism.
Insufficient notice sparks union and public criticism
The United Workers of Electronics and Electrical Industries (UWEEI), which represents Dyson’s employees in Singapore, criticised the company for providing only a one-day notice before the retrenchment exercise.
UWEEI confirmed that it had been informed of the layoffs on 1 October, a day before they were implemented.
The union expressed disappointment, stating that the short notice left little time to engage with Dyson or support the workers before the exercise began.
While most of the retrenched workers fell outside UWEEI’s formal representation under its agreement with Dyson, the union escalated the issue to MOM for further review.
MOM responded by noting that because the affected employees were not unionised, the one-day notice to the union was legally permissible.
The ministry clarified that in cases involving unionised workers, companies are expected to give the union a month’s notice before retrenchments, allowing time for joint efforts to assist affected staff.
However, MOM acknowledged that giving early notice is “good practice” and builds trust between employers and unions, suggesting that Dyson’s failure to do so had eroded goodwill.
Despite these explanations, the public reaction has been largely critical, with many calling for a review of MOM’s retrenchment guidelines.
Critics argue that current laws allow companies to fulfil their obligations on paper while offering minimal protection to workers in practice.
MOM’s position draws criticism for being outdated
Dyson’s compliance with existing laws has not quelled the backlash, with many questioning whether MOM’s retrenchment framework is outdated.
One social media commenter noted, “It’s unfortunate that MOM’s mandatory layoff notice timeline is quite primitive and outdated, allowing corporations to execute retrenchments before MOM and the union are informed. This is not how tripartism works.”
Other critics have highlighted that the short notice period effectively limits any meaningful intervention by unions or employees, calling for reforms to increase the mandatory notice period.
“The one-day notice should be reviewed and banned. It should be done three months in advance, not one day. One day is no different from silent termination,” commented another individual.
Dyson’s retrenchment also underscored the lack of mandatory retrenchment benefits in Singapore, with some commenters pointing out that companies are not legally required to offer such benefits.
While Dyson did provide retrenchment benefits in line with the Tripartite Advisory on Managing Excess Manpower and Responsible Retrenchment—offering benefits to both long-serving and shorter-term employees—many feel that the broader legal framework allows for too much flexibility, leaving workers vulnerable.
Retrenchment process raises concerns over corporate transparency
The retrenchment, which became public in early October, was part of a surprise move by the UK-based technology company, catching many off guard.
Dyson had previously reassured employees in Singapore that its operations, which serve as its global headquarters, would not be impacted by a global restructuring.
However, layoffs were confirmed to have affected staff in the manufacturing and procurement departments, creating unease among workers and raising concerns about the company’s transparency.
Media reported that the layoffs were conducted discreetly, with affected staff receiving email notifications for one-on-one meetings with human resources representatives.
During these meetings, employees were informed that their roles had been made redundant.
One laid-off worker described the process as “surreal,” noting that colleagues quietly packed up their belongings after receiving their notices.
The layoffs took place just three months after Dyson assured its Singapore-based workforce that local operations would not be impacted by its global restructuring plan.
These assurances had followed job cuts in July 2024 that affected 1,000 positions in the UK, further fuelling anxiety among employees in Singapore.
Some employees expressed concern that further retrenchments could be forthcoming, citing the company’s previous phased layoffs as a precedent.
While the total number of employees affected by the October retrenchment remains undisclosed, the layoffs have had a visible impact on workplace morale.
According to one employee, “No one knows if more cuts are coming next week. People are shocked and have low morale.”
This uncertainty has been compounded by Dyson’s reluctance to provide detailed information about the layoffs or future restructuring plans.
Dyson’s defence and ongoing discussions on labour protections
Dyson defended its actions by stating that the company is adjusting its team composition to better align with future growth plans.
A Dyson spokesperson reiterated that the firm remains committed to Singapore and its ambitions in the region, despite the retrenchment.
The company confirmed that affected employees would be offered career support, including outplacement services and counselling, but it declined to provide specifics on how it intends to assist laid-off staff.
MOM’s defence of Dyson’s retrenchment process has sparked calls for reform, with many urging for stronger protections for workers in such scenarios.
In response to the public criticism, MOM has indicated that it will engage with NTUC and the Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF) to review the implementation of Section 30A of the Industrial Relations Act.
This section allows unions to represent executives individually in retrenchment cases, even when they are not covered by a collective agreement.
As discussions continue, it remains to be seen whether the controversy surrounding Dyson’s retrenchment will lead to meaningful changes in Singapore’s labour laws, or if the issue will remain a flashpoint for critics of current retrenchment practices.
