SIA’s policy of firing its pregnant cabin crew offers food for thought in employment contract clauses

UNTIL mid-July this year, Singapore Girls who became pregnant and declared themselves so would lose their jobs.

Do they get maternity leave? In order to collect eight weeks’ worth of their basic salaries (typically S$1,000+ a month, because the majority of a flight attendant’s pay comes from allowance given to them for layovers and longer journeys), the cabin crew has to submit a note from her gynaecologist confirming her pregnancy. The other eight weeks’ basic pay comes after she submits her new baby’s birth certificate.

And if she wishes to return to flying, Singapore Airlines (SIA) will reassess her suitability to do so – questions to ask might include: has she taken too many days of last-minute medical leave in the past? Is she back in shape? – before offering her a new contract and putting her back on the roster.

In talking to a couple of former crew friends who quit and became mothers – some were forced to quit because they conceived, and others left before starting families – I uncovered various perspectives on this. All agree it wasn’t an ideal set-up for a job, and that our beloved national carrier, behind the glamour of donning that kebaya, really doesn’t do that good a job valuing its female cabin crew.

However, one of my friends had a view that isn’t often said out loud, but which certainly might be the way many Singaporean employees think and accept to be how things are. She explained that despite it not being an ideal human resource policy, it should be thought of as fair since it is communicated clearly to a prospective Singapore Girl before she signs up to become one. Get pregnant, get the sack. This is not a job that is safe for pregnant women to perform (that kebaya won’t fit for long either).

In other words, every SIA air stewardess took the job knowing that they would be ditched the moment they get pregnant (and reveal this, whether by choice or inevitably), and so they should not be unhappy about that happening to them.

That view struck me surprisingly deeply. How many of us have ever felt so relieved to have found a job (especially our first one post-graduation) that we signed the dotted line without scrutinising the employment contract, or hurriedly accepted terms we might not have realised would trap us later on?

It made me think about the many ways in which employment contracts trap us with clauses that are frequently damaging to our careers – and one of the many things I’ve learned in my time working is that not everything that is written in a contract is as powerful as it might appear to be.

Some clauses may look innocuous enough, just a bit annoying, but they may in fact be unenforceable – that is, they can’t actually hold up in a court of law – and following them obediently when you don’t actually have to can wind up being a waste not just of your time but also your money.

“Under Singapore law, post termination restrictive covenant clauses like non-competition and non-solicitation are generally unenforceable unless it can be shown to be necessary to protect a legitimate business interest and is drafted to be reasonable to parties bound by it,” says employment lawyer Emmanuel Sim.

So it’s important, therefore, he says, to learn and know what your rights are – many of which are spelled out in Singapore’s Employment Act – and also to seek advice where you are unsure.

On the off-chance you don’t already know of these, here’s a quick (and with all things legal, non-exhaustive) rundown on some common ones to look out for:

Noncompetes

These basically say: if you leave, you are not allowed to join a competitor within X months/years.

If you do, your current employer reserves the right to sue you in court for damages (usually money you might find too hefty to pay).

Such a clause is valid if:

• It protects a proprietary interest (specific asset or advantage) that belongs to the employer. Examples include client connections, internal pricing and competitive strategies and non-public information that gives the company an edge over its competitors.

An employee’s skills or know-how acquired in the course of employment do not count as proprietary interest, though.

It likely ISN’T valid if:

• It covers all employees at the company, no matter how junior or senior they are, and even if they don’t have much access to sensitive information.
• It prevents a person from working in the same industry entirely.
• It prevents a person from working for a rival, no matter what the work being done is.
• It doesn’t state a clear period this covers.

Non-solicitation clauses

These say, you are not allowed to hire anyone from the company / solicit the company’s clients for business at your new company for X months or years.

Such clauses are likely to be valid if:

• They are directed at senior employees, in the interest of protecting the company’s stable and trained workforce.
• They were extensively negotiated and the employee is compensated well in return for accepting the clause.

But they are not, if:

• There is no clear commercial purpose behind them.
• The purpose is to prevent disclosure of trade secrets, but a non-disclosure clause also exists in the contract.
• The parameters go beyond what is needed to protect a legitimate proprietary interest.

Liquidated damages

These clauses say that if you resign from a company before your contract expires, you will have to pay a financial penalty to the company in liquidated damages.

This chiefly affects people who work on term contracts, instead of on permanent positions within a company.

A clause like this can be enforced if:

• An employee had certain training or study fees sponsored by the company as part of their employment contracts, hence the amount spent can be the loss suffered by the company if the employee leaves before his/her contract is up.
• An employee was recruited through an agency that may suffer losses from him/her not staying past a certain period.

It wouldn’t hold water in court if:

• It is essentially present to punish you for leaving before the end of your contract.
• The amount you have to pay in penalty is not based off any genuine estimate of the losses the company will suffer in the event of your departure.

So what happens if you do get sued? How do you defend yourself?

First of all, lawyer up. If you’re planning to leave your job, get a friend who is a lawyer (if you have one) to help you look over your employment contract to check if there are any clauses you need to be careful of – like any of the above.

That friend can probably also help you see if the clauses will hold up in court or not – from there, depending on what your next move is job-wise, you can decide if you want to quit anyway and take the risk of the company suing you, or if it’s important to abide by what you signed off on.

Again, these aren’t comprehensive or exhaustive, but thankfully there’s a wealth of local-specific and relevant information about these and other pesky-looking employment contract clauses that you can read up about online – the Ministry of Manpower has some relevant FAQ too.

And while we’ve drifted some way away from the plight of the Singapore Girl, I guess I’m just glad they now have the option to continue working while pregnant, in a safe working environment – barring which, SIA’s glamour and prestige will inevitably lose its shine among its cabin crew as an ideal way to fly.