share on
- FWAs are not a legal right. Employers may decline requests, but decisions must be based on legitimate business reasons and communicated in writing.
- Overtime disputes, workplace injury claims, data breaches, and discrimination complaints can arise if policies and tracking systems are not clearly defined.
- Both sides have responsibilities. Employers should apply decisions consistently, while employees should request FWAs formally and note that performance expectations remain unchanged.
The Middle East conflict may feel distant, but its effects are being felt closer to home. Rising energy prices, higher fuel costs, and increased utility bills are quietly squeezing household budgets and business margins across Singapore. The Government has stepped in to cushion the blow through corporate income tax rebates, CDC vouchers, and U-Save rebates, but the pressure on both employers and employees remains.
It is against this backdrop that a familiar question is resurfacing: Could flexible work arrangements (FWAs) do more to help?
Singapore has taken a careful approach to this, with the Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangement Requests (TG-FWAR) providing a formal process for employees to request FWAs and for employers to consider them. But as costs rise and workplace expectations shift, should Singapore be doing more? And what does the law actually say about how FWAs should be handled?
Umairah Nasir speaks to Abdul Wahab, Managing Director, A.W. LAW LLC, to find out. He notes that conversations around FWAs have been growing, and that given how new the guidelines are, there is still some uncertainty around the rules, with the possibility of future changes. That said, after reviewing the TG-FWAR framework carefully, he shares his thoughts on three areas:
- How employers should approach FWAs and what legal considerations matter,
- The legal risks that are often missed, and
- What employees should know before making a request.
Wahab's responses paint a clear and consistent picture. FWAs may not be a legal entitlement, but when handled with good faith, proper documentation, and legitimate business reasoning, they can work well for everyone. Read his responses below to find out more.
Q With the Tripartite Guidelines on TG-FWAR in place, how should employers approach expanding flexible work arrangements, and what legal considerations should they keep in mind?
Preliminarily, employers should note that the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) has indicated that the guidelines are mandatory to follow, meaning that employers can face intervention measures, for instance mandatory workshops, from MOM if they are found to be in breach of the guidelines. You may find more information on potential interventions on the MOM website covering FAQs on the TG-FWAR.
These guidelines also regard formal requests and do not automatically preclude any formal or informal FWA system that an employer may have. You may reference the TAFEP Guide to Managing FWA Requests (For Employers), under the FAQ section for more information.
Under the new TG-FWAR, there are 3 broad categories of FWA (see page 4 of the TG-FWAR):
- flexi-place (working from locations other than the office);
- flexi-time (different timings with no change to total hours or workload); and
- flexi-load (different workloads with commensurate remuneration)
The TG-FWAR also sets out:
- The process for submitting a formal FWA; and
- How employers should respond to a formal FWA.
This formal process expects employers to consider each formal request on a case-by-case basis and try to make arrangements to accommodate such FWA requests to the best of their ability.
In general, employers should engage in good faith discussions to properly consider the reasons for an employee's request and to reach a mutual understanding with the employee. Any discussion and decision reached should be grounded in business-related reasons, such as the employee's performance or the employer's business needs. Other reasons tied to a company's tradition or culture or unjustified preference are generally invalid.
Not limiting the range of reasons, some examples of possible legitimate business-related reasons could be:
- An increase in costs,
- Material loss of productivity or efficiency, and
- Infeasibility due to the job-scope of the employee. For instance, a front-facing employee.
Further, employers should provide written responses to any formal FWA request within two months of the request. Any reasons for rejection should also be included in the same written response.
However, employers should note that FWA is not a legal entitlement or right, and they are not legally obligated to accommodate all requests or proactively offer FWA arrangements. Employers are legally entitled to deny FWA requests on legitimate, business-related grounds.
For further reference, please find the link to the MOM guideline document herewith, Tripartite Guidelines on FWA Requests. You may find further information on the above in pages 8-10 under the sections on “considering formal FWA requests” and “communicating decisions on formal FWA requests”.
Accordingly, I recommend employers take a proactive approach in expanding FWAs by providing some brief internal guidelines, explanations and company-specific examples of FWA arrangements. This will help build employer-employee understanding and could streamline FWA requests. Employers could also educate managers to improve management of employees on FWAs and reduce loss of productivity or business concerns.
Q If a company moves to more flexible arrangements, what are the biggest legal risks that often get overlooked (overtime claims, working hours, etc)?
Overtime claims and working hours can often get overlooked under FWA when there is a level of self-accountability and self-reporting placed onto the employees, particularly in flex-place arrangements where employees do not work from the office. Where tracking hours becomes more complicated, it is possible for disputes to arise over overtime claims or working hours as you have rightly brought up.
Such disputes can arise over fraudulent reporting of hours or negligence on the part of managers and supervisors. Accordingly, new systems could be implemented to assist managers and supervisors in tracking hours. Managers and supervisors should also be educated on what constitutes working or overtime hours.
Another notable risk is the issue of workplace injury. Pursuant to Section 7 Work Injury Compensation Act 2019, an employee is entitled to compensation for injury arising out of their course of work. This applies even under flexible arrangements where the employee is not working at his place of employment or office. You may refer to MOM’s publication on WICA coverage and question 3 of the MOM FAQs on the TG-FWAR for more information. Accordingly, workplace safety guidelines and policies can be revamped to include flexible arrangements.
There is also an increased risk of breach or leakage of confidential information and data. Where employees work outside of the controlled office environment or networks, there are increased risks of data breaches or leaks which the companies can be held liable for. Please refer to the Personal Data Protection Commission advisory guidelines on the Personal Date Protection Act. Employers must therefore consider the confidentiality of the data that each employee handles when making decisions on FWA. Employees working directly with/on confidential personal data for instance, may not be suited for
flexi-place arrangements.
Another potential risk is exposure to discrimination complaints. An employer should strive to approve FWA requests in a fair manner, with clear and transparent guidelines or reasons. This would prevent potential improper rejections and thus protect the employer from claims or complainants on grounds of discrimination.
It bears emphasis that this list is not exhaustive and there are other legal risks that companies may face in connection with flexible arrangements.
Q From a legal perspective, what should employees be aware of when entering or requesting flexible work arrangements?
As a starting point, employees should note that TG-FWAR scheme only applies to employees who have completed their probation period, and that even after probation, they are not legally entitled to FWA as a right. This means that while an employee may request an FWA, there is no obligation for the employer to approve their FWA request. (See page six of the TG-FWAR, under “who can make a formal request for FWAs?”)
Additionally, employees should be aware of their employer's rights and business concerns, as covered above, when requesting a flexible arrangement. They should evaluate the suitability of a flexible arrangement for their own circumstances and consider potential impact on their workload and performance. As far as possible, they should endeavour to understand the perspective and interests of their employers and engage in good faith discussions as well.
When submitting a formal FWA request, employees should also take note to follow the TG-FWAR guidelines. Specifically, they should use the system or formats stipulated by their employers unless the employer does not have a stipulated process.
Where there are no stipulated requirements or process, the employee should make a formal request in writing, the date of the request, the FWA requested for and its frequency and duration, the reason for the request and the start and end date if relevant.
You may refer to pages six and seven of the TG-FWAR on “how should a formal FWA request be made?” for more information. In particular, Annex A sets out the template for a formal FWA request.
Additionally, employees should take note that even while undertaking a flexible arrangement, employees are still subject to fair appraisal systems. The implications of this are twofold. While merely being on a FWA may not be sufficient reason, if the FWA materially impacts an employee's performance or contributions, employers may amend their job scope, responsibilities and remuneration accordingly. You may refer to question 12 of the MOM FAQs on the TG-FWAR and question six in Annex C of the TG-FWAR for more information.
Employees on FWA should still maintain the standards of conduct and professional ethics expected of an ordinary employee on a traditional working arrangement. The process of handling misconduct and the potential repercussions are the same for all employees regardless of their working arrangement. (See question two of the MOM FAQs on the TG-FWAR).
Should employees be dissatisfied with their employer's rejection of their FWA request, they should seek amicable resolution by discussing alternative arrangements that better consider their employer's interests or raise their dissatisfaction to internal bodies or the HR department to handle the matter before escalation. For further information, you may refer to the MOM FAQs on complaints against employer rejection of formal FWA requests.
The bottom line
The TG-FWAR sets out a clear framework, one that formalises how employees can request FWAs and how employers should consider and respond to them. At its core, Wahab emphasises that decisions must be grounded in legitimate business reasons, not habit, tradition, or managerial preference.
Employees on FWAs, he notes, are treated no differently from those on traditional arrangements. The same rights and responsibilities apply, and employers can raise concerns over performance or contributions regardless of working arrangement. In that sense, the guidelines are less about giving employees more, and more about giving both sides a structured way to work through differences and reach mutual understanding.
Ultimately, Wahab believes the framework presents an opportunity. Employers and employees who engage with it in good faith have the best chance of improving workplace satisfaction without compromising business outcomes.
ALSO READ: As costs rise, should Singapore employers rethink flexible work arrangements?
Lead image / Provided
share on
