Pregnant nurse says that after one month in new
job...
I was sacked via SMS
By Genevieve Jiang
January 17, 2008
BARELY a month into her new job, Madam Cheryl Lee took no-pay leave
for medical and personal reasons.
Madam Cheryl Lee, with the SMS that she got from SATA's human
resource manager. Picture: KELVIN CHNG
She was also hospitalised for three days, followed by medical leave
for more than a month.
The 25-year-old staff nurse, who was then five months' pregnant,
had suffered complications.
During her medical leave, she received an SMS from her employer
telling her that she had been sacked.
The reason, she alleged, was her pregnancy.
But her employer, the Singapore Anti-Tuberculosis Association
(SATA), countered that the termination was fair because of her
frequent absences from duty.
It also explained that it resorted to sending the SMS because Madam
Lee would not return for counselling.
HEALTH REASONS
Said Madam Lee: 'How can they terminate my service because of
health reasons? It's not fair.'
The first-time mother applied for the staff nurse position last
October.
She was then four months' pregnant but did not declare it during
the first interview.
At a second interview at SATA, she was briefed on her
responsibilities and asked to go for a routine medical check-up. It
was then that she declared her pregnancy.
Madam Lee, whose husband works in the airline industry, started
work at SATA's Jurong Medical Centre on 15Oct for a monthly salary
of $2,300.
Two days later, she was told that because she was still on three
months' probation, she would not be entitled to maternity leave or
medical benefits for conditions related to her pregnancy.
She thought the conditions were fair and agreed.
In October and November, she applied for no-pay leave to go for
medical checkups and attend to family affairs. She cannot remember
the number of times she did this.
She also had problems at work.
'During the week of 19 Nov, the clinic was very busy because half
of the staff were out doing community projects such as health
screenings.
'So I was basically on my feet almost all the time, seven hours a
day.'
That week, she experienced abdominal cramps and mild vaginal
bleeding. So she applied for no-pay leave again on 23 and 24
Nov.
Then on 28 Nov, at about 5am, Madam Lee woke up to find blood
flowing down her leg.
As her husband was overseas, a relative took her to the emergency
department of the KK Women's and Children's Hospital.
At about 9am, she said she received a call from her employer but
was unable to answer because a doctor was attending to her.
CALL FROM CLINIC
Said Madam Lee: 'A while later, my employer called me again to ask
me why I wasn't at work. It was then that I explained the situation
to her.'
She was in hospital for three days and then given medical leave
till 8 Dec. But on that day, she experienced a sharp pain running
down her hip and left leg. She had trouble getting out of bed, and
struggled to bend or stand.
'It felt like a stabbing pain down my leg. I had to take
painkillers to ease the pain.'
Doctors explained that the pain in her leg was caused by the uterus
pressing against a nerve running down her lower back and
legs.
She was given painkillers and medical leave till 18 Dec.
She said: 'That week, I got a call from my company asking me to
meet the human resource manager.
'When I asked her what it was about, she said she couldn't discuss
it on the phone. I had a sinking feeling that it was bad
news.'
Madam Lee said she couldn't make it as she was still on medical
leave at the time.
She went for a follow-up check-up on 18 Dec, where her doctor again
extended her medical leave to 5 Jan. She then SMSed her employer
about the extension.
But on 19 Dec, Madam Lee received an SMS that she had been
sacked.
The SMS from her HR manager said: 'In view of your health condition
and safety of your baby, she (the clinic manager) thinks that it is
better for you not to be working now. As the clinic is also
short-handed, she has to employ another nurse not knowing when you
can come back to work.
'A letter of termination will be sent to you by post today. Take
care and have a smooth delivery.'
Madam Lee received a letter soon after, stating that she still owed
SATA $85.18 for her period of absence.
She now plans to lodge a complaint with the Manpower
Ministry.
She said: 'I'm not hoping for any compensation, but it's the
principle of it that I'm disputing. It's just not fair.'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Company says: We fired her because...
THE Singapore Anti-Tuberculosis Association's chief operating
officer Aaron Ng replied:
'Madam Cheryl Lee was employed as a staff nurse on 7 Oct.
Despite her pregnancy, we hired her. This is testimonial to our
non-discriminatory human resource (HR) policies.
During her two interviews, she was told the job nature of a staff
nurse, including having to stand for prolonged hours. As a former
nurse, she was aware of the requirements.
Following SATA's HR policies, in accordance with the Employment
Act, Madam Lee was placed on three months' probation.
The Act states that probational staff are not entitled to medical
leave in the first six months of service, and would have to take
no-pay leave for any absence.
Our terms are more favourable, restricting award of medical leave
only for the first three months.
NOT ENTITLED
The Act also states that female employees are not entitled to
maternity benefits unless they have served for more than 180
days.
The above terms were clearly stated in her employment contract and
in a letter on medical conditions. Hence, Madam Lee's absence from
duty was to be viewed as no-pay leave.
Madam Lee was absent from duty frequently since starting work on 15
Oct.
Up to 24 Nov, she did not inform the clinic manager as required,
but instead SMSed her co-worker whenever she went absent.
When prompted, she informed the manager via SMS, avoiding direct
communication. Her notifications were always late, resulting in the
clinic staff or manager having to call her to find out if she was
coming in.
During her two months' employment, she was absent for 33 days. Her
absence was to be clocked as no-pay leave, and not medical leave,
as she was on probation.
COLLEAGUES COVERED HER
Reasons for her absence, from the few occasions that we knew of,
included those not related to her pregnancy. Colleagues had to
cover her duties. Much time and effort was spent on managing her
absence.
Madam Lee was absent from 1 to 18 Dec.
On 19 Dec, when the manager again received another SMS from her
that her medical leave was extended to Jan, she decided to
terminate Madam Lee's employment, as staff morale and clinic
operation were badly hit by her absence.
In accordance with her employment contract and the Employment Act,
two weeks' salary in lieu of notice was given upon termination.
Unsuccessful attempts were made to contact her to ask her to return
for counselling. When contacted eventually, she claimed to be
unwell and could not oblige.
Therefore, a termination notice was sent by post to her residence,
after an SMS to notify the same. SATA paid Madam Lee full salaries
from 15 Oct to 30 Nov, despite her frequent absence.
Upon her termination, according to our HR policy and the Employment
Act, her remuneration vs working days was re-computed. Her frequent
absence resulted in an overpayment of more than a thousand dollars.
After off-setting this against the two weeks' salary in lieu, she
still owes SATA $85.18.
As a charity ruled by strict standards of corporate governance, we
had to follow procedures and demand for return of the overpayment.
However, if she has difficulty paying back, we can waive it out of
goodwill.
SATA has always practised compassionate HR policies, granting
confirmed staff full-pay medical leave for prolonged illnesses, and
championing the re-employment of retired workers.'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ministry: More discrimination complaints from mums-to-be
Manpower Ministry (MOM) received 71 complaints in 2006 from
mothers-to-be facing threat of dismissal.
Number up from 60 complaints in 2005, said ministry
spokesman.
Its investigations found 33 out of 36 cases settled in favour of
employees.
Employment Act states it is an offence to sack employee during
maternity leave. Dismissal because of pregnancy also considered
unfair.
MOM received atleast 180 employment-related discrimination cases
between 2004 and 2006.
Panel formed in 2006 to stamp out discrimination at workplaces gave
guidelines on conduct of job interviews and design of job
application forms.
More than 500 employers, including civil service and various
business organisations, have signed pledge to follow such fair
employment practices.
Employees who feel they are unjustly dismissed have a month to
appeal in writing to MOM to investigate the matter.
