Mr Speaker, Sir, I read with considerable interest the Employment (Amendment) Bill. I am particularly interested in clause 2 of the Bill. To begin with, this clause seeks to introduce a form of procedure whereby a worker or an employee within the definition of the original Act may seek reinstatement in his former employment if he can satisfy the Minister that he has been dismissed from service without just cause or excuse by his employer. Sir, as the Minister has pointed out, a similar procedure is found in section 35 (2) of the Industrial Relations Act. The only difference, of course, under section 35 (2) of the Industrial Relations Act, is that a worker who is aggrieved by his dismissal must make representation in writing to the Minister through his union, whereas under the provisions of the proposed amendment to the Employment Act he need not he a member of a union. We, in the NTUC, have in the past always regarded a worker, who is eligible to seek membership in the union but who refrains from joining a union, as a parasite in our society. Mr Speaker, Sir, from our point of view, the proposed procedure in clause 2 of the Bill is objectionable. You will agree with me, Sir, that in legislating matters which are interrelated, there should be some uniformity. Both the Employment Act and the Industrial Relations Act are pieces of legislation governing the relationship between the employer and the employee. I do hope that clause 2 of the Bill, which introduces a new section 14 in the Employment Act, could he amended at page 2, lines 7 and 8 of the Bill, to ensure that any representation to the Minister for reinstatement arising from a wrongful dismissal can be made only through a union and not otherwise. However, I do realise that it may be desirable to make suitable provisions in exceptional cases, such as dismissals of a prospective union member who may be engaged in organising workers in his place of employment or in cases where recognition of the union is withheld by the employer for lack of majority. At this juncture, Sir, it would be relevant for me to draw the attention of the House to the need to consider introducing a clear and definite form of procedure in dealing with the merits of the representation for reinstatement. However, to understand and appreciate what I am about to propose, one has to go back to the year 1965. At the end of that year, Sir, the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 1965, was passed. One of the most important amendments was the granting of specific powers to the Industrial Arbitration Court to order the reinstatement of a dismissed employee. This power was removed in 1968 by a further amendment to the Industrial Relations Act. And now, Sir, only in cases of victimisation does the Court have the power to reinstate. As a result of the restrictions placed on the Court's power to deal with dismissal cases, the only remedy available in the case of wrongful dismissal is that provided under section 35 (2) of the Industrial Relations Act. In the early stages following the amendment in 1968, a few inquiries were held at the Labour Court in the Labour Ministry, presided over by an officer appointed for that purpose. Witnesses were allowed to be called by both parties and could testify at the inquiry. To some extent the proceedings at such an inquiry, though informal, were well regulated and were quite satisfactory. For the past three years, however, no inquiries of such a nature have been held. Instead, when representation is made for reinstatement, Labour Ministry officials call for the parties separately and make their recommendations thereafter. In trade union circles, dismissal as a form of punishment, especially to a worker who has put in many years of service, is analogous to a death sentence as it is the supreme form of punishment. Nor shall we confine our attention only to the dismissed worker who may well be either the sole breadwinner or the main provider in his family. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, by one injudicious act an employer can inflict punishment on a group of innocent persons. It is, therefore, necessary for us when dealing with dismissal cases to extend our consideration to the family unit as well. Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to deal with the relevant provisions in clause 2. In the proposed section 14 (1) (b), the employer is given the right to suspend a worker without payment of salary for a period not exceeding one week. This is a re-enactment of the existing provision. From experience, Sir, very few employers observe the provision to suspend a worker for one week. What they normally do is to hold an inquiry of their own. They make their own investigation without giving an opportunity to the suspended worker to explain or to counter the allegations of misconduct. In some cases, Sir, where the investigation cannot be completed within a week, the employers invariably proceed to dismiss, believing, rightly or wrongly, that if they do not dismiss after one week they might lose the right to dismiss. Even more disturbing, Sir, is the possibility that the employer, being engaged in more urgent business, may not be able to take prompt steps to investigate into the alleged acts of misconduct, and when he finds that the week is coming to an end through his neglect to take steps promptly, he will proceed to dismiss. In matters of this nature, Sir, it is desirable to extend the time where the case requires it. I would suggest that the suspension period for the purpose of an inquiry be one week initially, during which the employee is paid half his salary, with the possible extension of a further week on one quarter of his salary. I have criticised the procedure adopted by employers by holding inquiries in the form of private investigation without the worker being given a chance to explain. We have found that there are always two versions to a story. In such an important matter as dismissal, there can be no justice unless the worker, against whom allegations of misconduct are made, is given a fair opportunity to state his case. In addition, he must be allowed to be represented by a union representative of his own choice and be allowed to contest the testimony of persons who have made statements against him. In other words, we consider that it is not only desirable but necessary that an employee, against whom allegations of misconduct are made, should be given the chance to confront witnesses from the management side who have made statements against him. I suggest, Sir, that the worker must also he given the opportunity to call any witnesses he considers necessary to testify on his behalf. Justice, Sir, must not only be done but also seen to be done. The suggested procedure, as mentioned by me earlier, is particularly necessary following representations to the Minister for reinstatement following a wrongful dismissal. I observe that the Commissioner for Labour will he entrusted with the duty to inquire into the dismissal and to make the necessary report to the Minister. The suggested procedure I mentioned earlier should he followed each time the Commissioner carries out an investigation into a dismissal case referred to him by the Minister. The present procedure under the industrial Relations Act - that of meeting union representatives and management representatives separately has proved to be unsatisfactory. If this procedure is allowed to continue, the confidence of workers in the Labour Ministry will be shaken. And if confidence is shaken, it is not likely for the workers to refer their grievances, especially in dismissal cases, to the Labour Ministry. In the ultimate, it will lead to a situation which the House can imagine - how much industrial unrest it will cause! Mr Speaker, Sir, 1 am sure that that is not the intention of this legislation, and I urge that the most serious consideration be given to the points I have raised. 3.28 p.m.