Mediations Handled by Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management

Mr Speaker, the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) was set up in April 2017, slightly under a year ago, and its purpose was to help employees and employers manage and resolve employment disputes. This includes both salary and non-salary-related disputes. A large majority of the disputes received by TADM are salary-related disputes which are governed under the Employment Claims Act (ECA), where mediation is compulsory. For non-salary disputes, voluntary mediation is offered.

Between April and December 2017, TADM concluded mediation for 6,000 salary-related claims under ECA. About 95% of these claims were filed by employees, and the remaining by employers for notice pay.

Seventy-nine percent of these 6,000 claims were settled amicably through mediation. Twelve percent were not settled as parties were unable to work out a settlement. These cases were then referred to the Employment Claims Tribunals (ECTs) for adjudication. The remaining 9% were claims involving non-attendance at mediation, in other words, someone did not show up.

One-third of the non-attendance cases were closed as the claimants themselves did not show up. For the remaining two-thirds, when respondents did not attend mediation, claimants could have their claims heard and adjudicated by the ECTs, even if respondents do not turn up for the hearing. Where there are good grounds, ECT can and will make a payment order in favour of claimants, for the full claimed amount. As a consequence of non-attendance, ECT may also order the respondents to pay costs to the claimants.

To date, TADM and the tribunal have helped about 92% of employees with valid salary claims recover their salaries in full. Most of the remaining employees received some form of partial payment.

Sir, I have two supplementary questions. First, is there any salary cap, or is it that any person can go and file their case at TADM? The second question is, I have a resident who was referred to TADM and the employer did not turn up. TADM says that since the employer did not turn up, so they closed the case. But they should have referred the case to ECT, as the Second Minister mentioned just now. So, perhaps, better training should be given to the staff at TADM. Instead of closing the case, we should see how best to help the claimant, in this case, the employee.

In answer to the first question, I stand corrected, but there is no cap to the claims that can be filed. To the second question, as I said in my earlier reply, even if the respondent does not turn up, it does not prevent the claimant from bringing the matter to the tribunal, and the tribunal will look at the validity of the claims and, if the tribunal is convinced that the claimant has filed a valid claim, then the fact that the respondent did not show up at the hearing does not prevent the tribunal from awarding full payment as claimed to the claimant. In the case of the Member's resident, if there are some particular situations that we are not aware of, I invite the Member to let me know and we will look into it.

What I meant is that a lot of employees are not aware that they can go to the tribunal. For the staff in TADM, instead of closing the case, they should have told the employees and advise them that they can file it with the tribunal. So, perhaps, there should be better training for the TADM staff so as to help the employees or the claimants.

I agree with that.