BM1987: Jolie’s 24-HRs Diners Pte Ltd (herein known as Jolie’s) is a local Start-up: Employment Law Case Study, NYP, Singapore

BM1987 EMPLOYMENT LAW ICA 1 CASE STUDY

Jolie’s 24-HRs Diners Pte Ltd (herein known as Jolie’s) is a local start-up that offers daily specials that are made with recipes that have been in the owner’s family for generations. Striving to make all their customers feel at home, they strive to provide excellent service in a clean and comfortable atmosphere.

Jolie’s have been doing very well until the recent economic downturn where Jolie’s suffers at least a 40% drop in sales. Jolie’s has 5 kitchen staff, 4 service crew, and 2 administrative staff who takes care of all their administrative functions from recruitment to procurement. Except for the kitchen staff, all service crew, and administrative staff are employed on the following terms

As a 24Hrs restaurant, employees at Jolie’s are required to perform shift work to meet operational demands. Due to the nature of work, employee retention has always been a challenge for Jolie’s. With poor sales and low employee morale, Jolie’s is struggling to stay in business. To make matters worst, one of its service crew, Ms. Amanda recently lodge a compliant with Ministry of Manpower claiming Jolie’s for wrongful dismissal, and this made news in one of the local online social media.

Ms. Amanda, 47, had told the media that she had been dismissed from her job for no apparent cause last May. The sibling of a senior admin staff at Jolie’s, who is not a Singaporean citizen, reportedly replaced her. It was also reported that she worked hard for the company, helped them in times of crisis for over a year by taking on another person’s workload which caused her to suffer a serious health issue. But the employer chose to terminate her unfairly in order for the hiring person to hire her own sister to take over her position the following day after her termination.

Ms Amanda had received $1,300 after asking for $9K as compensation. Ms Amanda asked for S$9K, the equivalent of six months salary, adding that she had experienced mental stress as well as incurred medical expenses for a health issue stemming from job-related stress. While she told the media that the director cum owner of Jolie’s had only wanted to give her S$900 at first, but later the two sides agreed on $1,300, which Amanda received last month.
Responding to the media’s probe, Jolie’s spokesperson explained why Ms. Amanda had not been wrongfully dismissed.

For one, her pay had been given to her within 7 days of her last day of work. Also, the company had offered for Ms. Amanda to continue to report to work and not be given any tasks for one month, or she could just leave with one month’s salary instead. Because Ms. Amanda was stunned by the choice she was given and was told to make a decision before noon the same day, she just decided to leave. This case is currently still under investigation by the Ministry of Manpower. After this incident, more employees at Jolie’s are experiencing lower motivational levels.

One such employee is a newly hired service crew, Ben Ong, a fresh ‘O’ Levels school leaver who joined 3 months ago. There were complaints lodged against Ben for being careless when taking orders and was not prompt in meeting customers’ requests. As such Jolie’s decision to extend Ben’s probation period by another 2 months. Feeling frustrated, Ben had resigned on the fourth month before completing his probation. Upon receiving his last paycheque, Ben approached the senior admin staff to clarify how his last drawn salary was computed since there was no breakdown of payable items in his payslip.

He also questioned if he was entitled to his annual leave and meal allowance to which the senior admin staff said no, the reason being he did not complete
his probation period. Till today, Ben has not heard from the senior admin staff. Feeling puzzled, and uneased, Ben left the workplace, planning to look up the website on Employment Act

Requirements

1. Assume that you are the MOM officer appointed to look into this case. Identify and explain any potential violations of the Employment Act, employment rules, or guidelines. Comment with reference to relevant areas of the legislation, rules, and concepts where applicable.

2. Provide at least FIVE (5) recommendations on the company’s employment practices that will prevent future similar violations and promote the harmoniously employee-employer relationship.

Prepare a written report to the commissioner, covering the above points 1to 4.

Submissions Report

You are to submit a written report with a word count between 1,500 to 1,800 words excluding the cover page and appendices. Arial Font size 12 with single spacing.

The report should consist of the following parts:

1. Introduction – Outline the background, scope, and coverage of the Employment Act relating to the case study.

2. Issues Identified – Identify and explain any potential violations of the Employment Act, employment rules, or guidelines. Comment with reference to relevant areas of the legislation, rules, and concepts where applicable.

3. Conclusion and Recommendations – Suggest and explain at least FIVE (5) recommendations on the company’s employment practices that will prevent future similar violations and promote a harmonious employee-employer relationship.

Assessment

The breakdown of marks is as follows:

Components Marks

1. The ability to provide a clear and accurate summary of the background, scope, and coverage of the Employment Act relating to the case study

2. Identify and explain any potential violations of the Employment Act, employment rules, or guidelines. Comment with reference to relevant areas of the legislation, rules, and concepts where applicable

3. Quality of recommendations on the company’s employment practices that will prevent future similar violations and promote harmonious employee-employer relationship