Piecing Together the Workplace Fairness Act: Passing of Dispute Resolution Bill to Establish Process for Workplace Fairness Disputes

18 November 2025

Introduction

Singapore’s employment landscape has seen several significant changes in recent times, with one highlight being the passing of the Workplace Fairness Bill on 8 January 2025 (“WF Bill“). The WF Bill introduced substantive protections against discrimination in employment, including statutory grievance-handling requirements and enforcement powers for serious breaches. In doing so, the WF Bill codified into law and strengthened the obligations that previously existed under the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices (“Tripartite Guidelines“) issued by the Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices (“TAFEP“), a tripartite agency comprising the Singapore Ministry of Manpower (“MOM“), the National Trades Union Congress, and the Singapore National Employers Federation.

At the time, MOM signalled that a second Bill would set out claims procedures and implement amendments to the Employment Claims Act 2016. Between 26 August to 19 September 2025, MOM held a public consultation on the draft second Bill regarding (i) the approach for amicable and expeditious resolution of workplace fairness disputes; (ii) the judicial forum to hear workplace fairness claims; and (iii) union representation for workplace fairness claims.

On 4 November 2025, the Workplace Fairness (Dispute Resolution) Bill (“DR Bill“) was passed in Parliament. Once in force, it will provide for civil actions for a statutory tort of discrimination – setting out the statutory framework for how individuals may lodge and resolve workplace discrimination claims. The DR Bill aims to provide a fair, accessible, and expeditious pathway for resolving workplace disputes and is guided by three principles: (i) enabling parties to resolve disputes amicably among themselves; (ii) providing accessible, expeditious and just resolution of claims while deterring frivolous claims; and (iii) maintaining workplace harmony and preserving social cohesion.

The DR Bill forms the second part of the broader Workplace Fairness Act 2025 (“WFA“), which will consolidate both the WF Bill and the DR Bill once enacted. Combined, the two Bills establish Singapore’s first unified framework addressing workplace discrimination, which is anticipated to come into force in end-2027.

In this Update, we review the dispute resolution process set out in the DR Bill and highlight practical aspects that employers and employees should know, such as:

Who can bring an action for discrimination?
What steps must a claimant take to bring an action for discrimination?
What are the applicable time bars?
If a claimant is successful, what can he/she be awarded?
What safeguards are in place to prevent frivolous, vexatious, or inflated claims?

Background of the WF Bill

The WF Bill prohibits employers from making an adverse employment decision on the ground of a protected characteristic. In brief:

Protected characteristics: These are categorised as follows: (i) age; (ii) nationality; (iii) sex, marital status, pregnancy and caregiving responsibilities; (iv) race, religion and language ability; and (v) disability and mental health conditions.

Adverse employment decisions: Examples include declining to hire a jobseeker, giving an employee a poor performance appraisal, denying a promotion opportunity, or dismissing them because the jobseeker or employee has a protected characteristic.

Exceptions: The WF Bill sets out several exceptions where an act is not discrimination, such as if the protected characteristic is a genuine requirement of the job, or if it discriminates in favour of certain demographics such as Singapore citizens or disabled individuals.

Employers must also implement a grievance-handling process, whereby they will inquire into any grievance and inform the complainant of the result. Retaliation against the complainant is prohibited.

For more information, please see our previous publications:

January 2025 NewsBytes article titled “Workplace Fairness Bill Passed in Parliament to Establish Fair Employment Practices, Protections from Discrimination“; and
November 2024 Legal Update titled “Landmark Workplace Fairness Bill Introduced in Parliament: Key Obligations and Practical Pointers“.

Basic Concepts

Who can bring an action for discrimination?

Under the DR Bill, an individual who is the subject of an alleged discriminatory employment decision may bring an action. This includes not only employees but also jobseekers who have applied for a position (collectively, “claimants“).

What steps must a claimant take to bring an action for discrimination?

The DR Bill envisages the following process for handling a workplace fairness dispute:

Internal grievance-handling process: Once a complaint has been filed with the employer, MOM encourages parties to first make use of the employer’s internal grievance-handling process (see its press release titled “Workplace Fairness (Dispute Resolution Bill) Provides Framework for Resolving Workplace Discrimination Disputes Amicably and Expeditiously“).

- It is worth noting that while employers are required to have this process in place per the WFA, the DR Bill does not require utilising it as a precondition for subsequent steps.
- We also highlight that the amended section 41 of the WFA voids any term of a contract of service or collective agreement that would preclude a person from “bringing an action for discrimination, submitting a mediation request, making a complaint or allegation, raising a grievance, or appealing against any decision of a court or authorised officer”. Thus, an employer may not preclude an employee from taking further steps even if the employee does not go through the employer’s internal grievance-handling process first. It remains to be seen how many claimants will choose to make use of their employer’s internal grievance-handling process or to bypass it altogether at the onset and apply directly for mediation to the Commissioner for Workplace Fairness (“Commissioner“).

Mandatory mediation: Before bringing an action for discrimination, the new section 36D of the WFA requires that a claimant must submit a mediation request to the Commissioner.

Commencement of an action for discrimination: If mediation is unsuccessful, a claimant may commence his/her claim before either the Employment Claims Tribunal (“ECT“) or the General Division of the High Court (“High Court“), depending on the claim amount.

Mandatory Mediation

What is the process for mediation?

A claimant must submit a request to the Commissioner to mediate every workplace fairness dispute of which the claimant intends to bring a claim. The mediation request must be made in the prescribed manner, within the applicable timeframes, and accompanied by the prescribed fee. If the mediation request is accepted, the Commissioner will refer the dispute/s to an approved mediator.

Key aspects are as follows:

Mediation is to be held in private and conducted as soon as reasonably practicable, unless the mediator is satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect of resolution.

For disputes up to S$30,000, mediators from the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (“TADM“), who presently handle a range of employment disputes up to the same value, will be appointed. For higher value claims above S$30,000, MOM will appoint other service providers such as the Singapore Mediation Centre and set more stringent requirements for mediators, such as legal qualifications or relevant experience with mediating employment disputes.

At mediation, individuals must act in person and cannot have legal representation. For employers that are not individuals, permitted representatives are set out in the new section 36I. However:

- Legal representation is allowed if the claim amount exceeds the ECT limit of S$250,000.
- Union representation is allowed for claimants who are union members. Those in non-unionised companies will have access to tripartite mediation advisors (“TMAs“) who are typically industrial relations practitioners.
- For employers, union representation is allowed for claims between S$30,000 and S$250,000 inclusive, but only where the employee also has union representation. This is a new feature to provide employers with support for higher value claims that are still below the S$250,000 threshold that would entitle the employers to engage legal counsel.

If mediation succeeds, the parties must enter into a settlement agreement in a prescribed form. Parties may apply to register the settlement agreement with the High Court, making it enforceable as a court judgment.

If mediation fails (including if the respondent employer fails to attend), the mediator will issue a claim referral certificate (“CRC“). The mediator may refuse to issue a CRC if the claimant fails to attend any mediation session without reasonable excuse.

What are the applicable time bars for a mediation request?

The new section 36E sets out various time bars for a claimant to submit a mediation request. The time bars will encourage individuals to come forward in a timely manner, before evidence degrades, while providing employers with some certainty that old incidents will not be dredged up.

Type of Decision	Time Bar
Pre-employment decisions relating to hiring	Employer gave (or is deemed to have given) notice of decision: within one month after date of notice (or deemed notice) Employer did not give notice: within two months after date of decision Note: The new section 5(3) of the WFA deems an employer to have made a decision not to hire an individual if, within one month of an individual's job application or interview, the employer has not hired the individual or invited them to subsequent interviews or tests (or has withdrawn such invitation). Notice of this decision is deemed to have been given on the same date.
In-employment decisions relating to e.g. performance appraisals, promotion, training	Employer gave notice of decision: within six months after the date of notice Employer did not give notice of decision Where a female claimant was on maternity leave within six months after the date of decision: within 12 months after date of decision Any other case: within six months after date of decision
End-employment decisions relating to e.g. dismissal, retrenchment	Where a female claimant with a certified pregnancy was given notice during pregnancy: within one month after the last day of employment or within two months after the date of confinement, whichever is later Any other case: within one month after the last day of employment

Notwithstanding the above, the Minister for Manpower Dr Tan See Leng (“Minister“) noted in his Second Reading Speech for the DR Bill that MOM has discretion to accept late mediation requests where there are reasonable grounds to do so, such as when the worker is incapacitated or seriously ill. This discretion is broad to accommodate various circumstances, and adjustments will be made to the present time bars where necessary.

Action for Discrimination

What are the requirements for commencing a claim?

Per the new section 36N, the claim must:

relate to a workplace fairness dispute;
be accompanied by a CRC; and
be filed within the relevant time bar.

What are the relevant time bars?

This will be set out in regulations, with the Minister noting that the time bars will reference the current duration for other ECT claims of four weeks from the issuance of the CRC. Time bars may differ for different circumstances and categories of claims.

Where should the claim be brought?

For claims up to and including S$250,000, the claim is to be brought before the Employment Claims Tribunal (“ECT“). The vast majority of WFA claims are expected to be handled by the ECT, providing more claimants with access to an affordable and expeditious dispute resolution forum – most ECT cases are resolved within six months, while employment-related cases in the State Courts are resolved within 18 months. Simplified rules and streamlined procedures will apply, which parties should find easier to navigate.

As per current ECT practice, legal representation is not allowed. However, union representation may be allowed on the same conditions applicable to mediation hearings as set out above. Union representatives can advise workers and employers on their rights and obligations, help parties navigate claims and encourage amicable settlements.

For claims above S$250,000, the claim is to be brought before the High Court. Strict rules of evidence and procedures will apply, and legal representation is allowed.

In both forums:

Claims are to be heard in private, meaning that the media or the public cannot attend the hearings. Individuals who publicise ongoing claims on social media may contravene the sub judice rule if it risks prejudicing or interfering with the proceedings, rendering them potentially liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. However, WFA judgments will be made publicly accessible.
Parties have a duty to consider amicable resolution.
Judges will take a proactive role in managing the case, such as by guiding parties to define the key issues and focus on evidence required. This helps parties without legal training to navigate the claims process.
As a safeguard, both the ECT and the High Court will be empowered to strike out frivolous claims and to award costs against claimants who file such claims on a case-by-case basis.

If the claimant is successful, what can the ECT or High Court award him/her?

The ECT or High Court can award damages. For a claim relating to an alleged discriminatory pre-employment decision, damages may be capped depending on the circumstances and category of claim. In his Round-up Speech for the DR Bill, the Minister clarified that the DR Bill does not introduce new heads of claim for damages such as injury to feelings, and stated that MOM would look into quantifying damages arising from discriminatory decisions.

For discriminatory end-employment decisions, the ECT or High Court may also order that the claimant be reinstated.

Implementation

How does the WFA differ from the current regime?

The substantive changes lie primarily in codifying anti-discrimination obligations into law and creating a statutory tort of discrimination. At present, employees can only pursue claims for wrongful dismissal or salary related claims at the ECT. Once the DR Bill is passed, individuals gain a legal right to seek remedies, including damages or reinstatement for discriminatory employment decisions at all stages of employment – from pre-employment to end-employment.

The DR Bill also significantly expands the ECT’s jurisdiction. Whereas the current ECT’s jurisdictional limits for unfair dismissal (including unfair dismissals arising from discrimination) and salary claims are S$20,000 (or S$30,000 depending on whether the claimant is a union member), workplace discrimination claims under the DR Bill will be handled by the ECT for claims up to S$250,000. It should be noted, however, that the higher claims limit for the ECT applies only to workplace fairness disputes, not other types of employment claims such as salary-related claims and wrongful dismissals.

Will the WFA apply to all employers?

The WFA will only apply to employers with 25 or more employees, which covers about 75% of all employers. However, this exception will be reviewed five years after the WFA comes into effect.

What safeguards are in place to prevent frivolous, vexatious, or inflated claims?

In its 4 November 2025 press release titled “Workplace Fairness (Dispute Resolution) Bill Provides Framework For Resolving Workplace Discrimination Disputes Amicably And Expeditiously“, MOM highlighted the following safeguards:

Both the ECT and the High Court will be empowered to strike out frivolous or vexatious claims. Striking out may be initiated by either the employer or the sitting judge.
Costs may be awarded against claimants who file frivolous or vexatious claims on a case-by-case basis.
Individuals who make such claims can be investigated by the police for abusing the court’s processes.
Individuals who persistently pursue such claims can be restrained from commencing further legal proceedings.

Regarding inflated claims, the Minister noted that MOM will work with tripartite partners to explore ways to address this. Claimants will still need to prove their losses to justify the damages claimed, with judges to make a fair and balanced assessment of the reasonableness.

What support is there for employers to prepare for implementation?

Apart from general education, TAFEP is designing step-by-step guides and templates that small-medium enterprises can utilise, alongside briefings, clinics, and human resource (HR) e-learning modules. MOM will also develop a handbook to capture the legal provisions and key principles behind the law, for instance through illustrations and case studies.

Other resources are also in the works, as mentioned in our January 2025 Legal Update. Such resources include a Tripartite Advisory for Reasonable Accommodations for persons with disabilities, as well as guidance on what constitutes a genuine job requirement.

Concluding Remarks

The DR Bill, and the WFA as a whole, is a very significant development for employers.

Whilst workplace discrimination allegations usually subsist under claims of wrongful dismissal, there is now a statutory tort of discrimination that employees can pursue against their employers. Crucially, it is not yet clear how damages or compensation arising from discriminatory decisions would be assessed, and employers would have to await guidance from MOM as mentioned by the Minister.

Employers would also have to ensure that its representatives become familiar with and understand the formal dispute resolution process under the DR Bill, including the applicable notice and time bars, and take more proactive steps in ensuring that it will be able to comply with the WFA when it comes into force. This is especially so given the expanded jurisdiction of the ECT, where legal representation is not allowed. Further, with a significantly higher monetary claim limit of S$250,000 (as opposed to S$20,000), employers should protect themselves by seeking legal advice at the onset of a dispute.

Given the expanded role of unions, it is expected that unions will play a more assertive role in the affairs of employers and encourage employees to sign up with the union to obtain union representation.

Rajah & Tann’s award-winning Employment Practice stands ready to advise employers on preparing for the implementation of the DR Bill and the WFA, and any other developments in Singapore employment law. Please reach out to our team set out on this page for further information.

Disclaimer

Rajah & Tann Asia is a network of member firms with local legal practices in Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. Our Asian network also includes our regional office in China as well as regional desks focused on Brunei, Japan and South Asia. Member firms are independently constituted and regulated in accordance with relevant local requirements.

The contents of this publication are owned by Rajah & Tann Asia together with each of its member firms and are subject to all relevant protection (including but not limited to copyright protection) under the laws of each of the countries where the member firm operates and, through international treaties, other countries. No part of this publication may be reproduced, licensed, sold, published, transmitted, modified, adapted, publicly displayed, broadcast (including storage in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently for any purpose save as permitted herein) without the prior written permission of Rajah & Tann Asia or its respective member firms.

Please note also that whilst the information in this publication is correct to the best of our knowledge and belief at the time of writing, it is only intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter and should not be treated as legal advice or a substitute for specific professional advice for any particular course of action as such information may not suit your specific business and operational requirements. You should seek legal advice for your specific situation. In addition, the information in this publication does not create any relationship, whether legally binding or otherwise. Rajah & Tann Asia and its member firms do not accept, and fully disclaim, responsibility for any loss or damage which may result from accessing or relying on the information in this publication.