RegisterLog In

Continue Employment after Termination

Thu, 12 Mar 2009 04:13:15 PM  (Last updated: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 10:13:01 AM)

Sir, the company which i am working for had informed us in early december 2008 that they have to close down the company due to our HQ in Japan had instructed to do so. As such on 6th February the Company had given us a Termination notice to all employees informing that the company will close down on 15th March 2009. But during the discussion session, our MD did inform that if the management wants to continue, we might give another letter to cancel the termination letter and continue with the employment. Hence, on 6th March 2009, our company had issued another letter informing all staff that the company continues its business but due to sales is down, the company will pay minimum salary to employees (13 days) from April to June (3 months) eventhough employees dont have to come to work. Some employees not satisfied because of the minimum salary paid and they request for compensation.

In such case, is the management wrong for doing above.

Kindly advice sir.

Thank you.

KL Siew
Thu, 12 Mar 2009 04:45:36 PM

I will let read Regulation 5 of the Employment (Termination and Layoff Benefits) Regulations as below:

".. 5. (1) Where an employee is employed under a contract on such terms and conditions that his remuneration thereunder depends on his being provided by the employer with work of the kind he is employed to do, he shall, for the purposes of regulation 3 (b), be deemed to be laid-off if -

(a) the employer does not provide such work for him on at least a total of twelve normal working days w

Fri, 13 Mar 2009 09:14:13 AM

Thank you very much for your advice sir.

Sat, 14 Mar 2009 10:13:01 AM

Good day Mr Siew. Just want to seek for your advice. Recently, our company is facing a dilemma with regard to our contractor. This contractor is facing a sudden financial problem and they cant afford to pay the salary to their workers for one month. So, their workers is unhappy and had lodge a report to the labour department seeking for compensation from this contractor. The contractor still insist not to pay even though the labour department had asked them to do so. At the end, the labour department ask us (as principal) to pay the salary to their worker. Do we need to help them to pay? Is there any law stating that the principal need to pay for the contractor? It sounds like unfair to us since this is the contractor problem. is there any other solution to solve this problem?

Please advise.


  This topic is closed