On 14 October 2025, Parliament introduced the Workplace Fairness Dispute Resolution bill – a follow up to the Workplace Fairness Act (WFA) passed in Parliament earlier this year. The Workplace Fairness Dispute Resolution bill outlines the claims process that one needs to undergo to file a claim of employment-related discrimination.

Summary of Bill

To summarise, the bill notes the following steps that one needs to undergo to file a claim of employment-related discrimination:

• Internal grievance handling: the bill first requires a claimant to attempt to seek recourse through the employer’s internal grievance handling process – only once the case of alleged discrimination cannot be resolved then it goes to mandatory mediation. (This step only applies if the person alleging discrimination was employed during or at the point of the alleged case of discrimination)
• Mandatory mediation: Before proceeding to adjudication, the bill requires parties to first undergo mandatory mediation at the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM). The bill requires the claimant to file a request for mediation within stipulated “time bars” (i.e. set windows of time from the incident of alleged discrimination). Additionally, excluding specific circumstances, a claimant alleging discrimination must represent themselves alone during the mediation process.
• Adjudication: If the dispute cannot be resolved after mediation, then the case heads to adjudication. Under the bill, where the case is adjudicated depends on the amount of the claim – For claims up to and including S$250,000, the case is heard at the Employment Claims Tribunal (ECT). If the claim amount exceeds S$250,000, then the case is heard at the High Court.

While the bill clearly outlines the process, aspects of the process raise several important questions especially for the disability community:

Internal Grievance Handling Processes

As outlined, under the proposed bill, claimants are first to attempt to resolve the dispute through the employer’s internal grievance handling processes (unless the claimant is not yet employed – i.e. the alleged case of discrimination occurs during the hiring phase). Under the first part of the WFA passed earlier this year, employers are required to put in place internal grievance handling processes.

The WFA does not specify how the grievance handling process should look but merely states that employers must “develop a process” that involves enquiry into, and a review of, each grievance raised, and that the employer must communicate the outcome of the review of the grievance to the claimant. The WFA notes that the employer must communicate/inform to all their employees in writing of this internal grievance handling process that they develop.

However, there are no specifications or requirements that such internal grievance handling processes be accessible for persons with disabilities or that such processes have to comply with particular accessibility standards [i.e. requiring that communications about such processes if online meet Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) standards]. 

As we have previously highlighted, including in our 2024 report on Achieving Fairness in Employment, ensuring that internal grievance handling processes are accessible is very important especially if it is required that potential victims of discrimination must first go through this process.

For example, if a company’s internal grievance handling process of filing a claim of discrimination involves filling out an online form or submitting a form through an online portal, and the online form or portal was not designed to be accessible with screen reading software, then this poses a barrier to persons with disabilities who rely heavily on screen reading software in submitting claims. Additionally, if a company’s internal grievance handling process is communicated to all employees in writing (as required by the law), but it was not done so in ways that are friendly to the neurodivergent community (i.e. not summarised or expressed in delineated steps), then various individuals from the neurodivergent community will face barriers in reporting cases of discrimination.

We have informed this to the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) about this and requested that at the very least the Tripartite Alliance on Fair Employment Practice (TAFEP) Grievance Handling Handbook be updated to include clear examples of how employers can make their internal grievance handling processes accessible.

Mandatory Mediation

On the point of mandatory mediation, the bill’s intent to minimise the number of cases that are needed for adjudication is understandable. However, it is important to ask if mediation should be mandatory. As advocates have highlighted, in cases of discrimination, resolutions should try to follow a victim-centred approach. A victim-centred approach to settlements and redress should grant autonomy to the victim to decide the best course of action, and mediations may not always be the best course of action in all cases as it may cause further distress to the aggrieved employee.

Moreover, the stipulated time bars are important to ensure cases are addressed in a timely manner especially while recollection of the alleged incident is clearer in the minds of both the claimant and employer. However, the time bar for filing a request for mediation in the pre-employment phase is particularly short – one month.

Additionally, what is unclear is what accessibilities will be available to persons with disabilities during the mediation process – especially in light of the strict rules around whether someone is allowed to accompany a claimant during the mediation process. The bill only allows a third party to be present during the mediation under the following specific circumstances:

• The claimant is allowed to have a union representative present during the mediation if the case is within a unionised company if the amount of the claim is below or inclusive of S$250,000
• The claimant is allowed an advocate or solicitor to be present during the mediation if the amount of the claim exceeds S$250,000

The bill does not specify if additional persons to provide accessibilities or accommodations such as a sign language interpreter or a job coach are able to be present during a mediation to facilitate the accommodation to a person with disability. If such individuals are allowed to be present, it would be important for the bill or guidelines on the bill to specify this.

Adjudication

What types of accessibilities are available during the adjudication process is a bit clearer – with the Singapore courts having an accessibility statement on their website outlining accessibilities and accommodations available.

However, as we have previously noted, the accessibility statement by the Singapore courts does not specify on a few important and common accessibilities and accommodations amongst the disability community.

For example, the accessibility statement lists several important accommodations for blind/visually impaired individuals such as the ability to use a guide dog. However, it does not mention if utilisation of screen reading software – a common access need and accommodation for blind/visually impaired people – will be permitted. Additionally, the accessibility statement does not mention any examples of accommodations for groups such as the neurodivergent community. It will be important for the accessibility statement to clarify such areas, and for reasonable accommodations to be provided during adjudication processes.

Other Areas

In addition to the questions raised above about the various phases of the claims process, it is important to highlight the below in optimising the efficacy of the bill.

Education/training

The experience of disability is diverse, and it would be important for mediators and arbitrators to be trained on disability issues to better assist their efforts in facilitating mediation on claims and cases that involve disabled realities.

Both the definitions of discrimination and disability in the WFA are unfortunately very limited and thus the impact of such training may be limited. For example, even if mediators and arbitrators were well trained on inclusive and comprehensive definitions of disability discrimination in all its forms, their power to apply such knowledge will be restricted to the narrow definitions of discrimination and disability in the WFA which only deals with direct discrimination based on limited categories of disability.

Having noted this, it is still important for steps to be taken to minimise any potential knowledge gaps, and thus were possible, it is important for mediators and arbitrators to be trained in disability-related topics – particularly on dignified conceptualisations of disability such as that found in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). Alternatively, there can be a panel established comprising of experts who are trained in such concepts (including persons with lived experience) for mediators and arbitrators to consult with the aims of closing or minimising any potential knowledge gaps on disability-related cases.

Optimising ease of reporting

When developing and explaining the WFA, the government noted that one of the aims of the WFA is to make it easier for those who have experienced workplace discrimination to come forward and report.

However, in addition to the disability-related concerns outlined above, the current iteration of the bill does still pose some potential outstanding questions for people who want to come forward and report cases of discrimination – whether disabled or not.

For example, as noted, with the exception of very specific circumstances, the bill requires claimants to represent themselves. However, the bill provides more exceptions for the employer. Under the bill, if the employer is a body corporate, they are allowed to be represented by an officer or full-time employee of the body corporate. If the employer is part of a partnership, they are allowed to be represented by the partner or a full-time employee of the partnership. And if the employer is an unincorporated association, they are allowed to be represented by someone from the governing body or a full-time employee of the unincorporated association.

These provisions might pose as a concern to some as the employer under such circumstances may appoint someone else in the company/organisation who is more well-versed in HR and employment matters to represent them – which, with the exception of very specific circumstances as outlined, is something not available to the claimant.

Additionally, the WFA allows the judge to strike out “frivolous or vexatious” claims and even charge a fine to those who are deemed of making a frivolous or vexatious claim. Yet, the WFA is not clear on how “frivolous or vexatious” is defined and will most likely depend on civil procedure or legal precedent.

The average person – whether disabled or not – will likely not have knowledge on such matters. Additionally, there usually are power imbalances between employer and employee that employees have to navigate if bringing forth claims of discrimination. Such dynamics are further pronounced with the WFA containing a narrow definition of discrimination.

To navigate such potential concerns, workplaces should be required or strongly advised to make known to employees a directory of resources – including pro-bono legal counsel – to assist employees on the best avenue for recourse in their specific case. Such a directory can and should include disability organisations and disabled advocates to potentially assist cases involving disability or disabled persons.

Summary of Recommendations

Internal Grievance Handling Processes:

• For the TAFEP Grievance Handling Handbook to be updated to include examples of accessible and disability-inclusive grievance handling processes
• For current or future amendments to comprise requirements for internal grievance handling processes to comply with basic accessibility standards such as WCAG accessibility

Mandatory Mediation:

• To clarify if third-party individuals to provide or facilitate accessibility or accommodations for claimants with disabilities may be present during mediation and if this is not permitted, to amend policies or guidelines to allow for such individuals to be present
• For current or future amendments to consider mediation to not be mandatory

Adjudication:

• To clarify examples of accommodation provided at adjudication processes – such as accommodations available for neurodivergent individuals
• To ensure reasonable accommodations at all phases of the adjudication process

Other Areas:  

• To train mediators and arbitrators in disability-related matters according to best standards of disability inclusion such as that found in the UNCRPD
• To clarify the definition of “frivolous and vexatious” claims for the benefit of claimants and employers
• To make widely available a directory of resources (comprising of pro-bono legal counsel and expertise on various topical areas such as disability advocates) to workplaces and employees