Workplace Fairness Act reshapes internal investigations in Singapore: lawyer

Singapore employers are facing new compliance obligations on how they manage internal disputes and workplace complaints, following the enactment of the Workplace Fairness Act (WFA) in January 2025.

The law, expected to take effect by 2026 or 2027, introduces enforceable requirements around grievance handling, whistleblower protections, and non-retaliation policies.

While the WFA builds on the foundation laid by the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices (TGFEP), its codification marks a shift toward more robust enforcement.

HR professionals will no longer be bound by advisory codes; they’ll be subject to penalties for non-compliance. With stricter obligations comes a growing need for companies to review their processes and mindset.

To unpack what the WFA means in practical terms for HR and business leaders, HRD Asia spoke with Jonathan Yuen, Head of Commercial Litigation and Employment at Rajah & Tann Asia.

WFA: From guidance to enforcement

“The WFA, passed on 8 January 2025, is expected to be implemented in 2026 or 2027,” Yuen says. “The intent of the WFA is to strengthen and complement the Tripartite Guidelines.”

He explains that the law formalizes protections against discrimination based on protected characteristics and introduces the requirement for employers to implement a formal grievance handling process.

In essence, it builds a stronger framework to address unfair treatment.

“This is certainly a landmark piece of legislation which shows the government taking a clear stand against workplace discrimination,” Yuen adds.

What internal grievance compliance really requires

Under Section 27 of the WFA, employers are expected to maintain confidentiality, proper documentation, and anti-retaliation safeguards in their grievance processes. But even before enforcement begins, Yuen sees potential pressure points.

“Some employers may be concerned about the adequacy and comprehensiveness of their inquiry, reviewing and other process obligations,” he says, especially since any breach will be considered a punishable contravention.

“It remains to be seen whether and if so how, contraventions will be prosecuted and the types of orders made against employers,” he adds.

Another challenge is interpreting what constitutes retaliation. “The broad definition of a retaliatory act under the Act… could now potentially open the floodgates to allegations of supposedly ‘retaliatory acts’ committed against the employee.”

Building employee trust through due process

According to Yuen, a grievance process shouldn’t just meet legal requirements. It must feel fair to employees.

“A legally sound grievance process is the foundational basis for a functional and trusted grievance process,” he explains.

He warns that ignoring the legal structure can erode employee confidence. “Employees’ trust in the company and its management will deteriorate if the legal frameworks and processes are either not legally sound or, worse, not complied with.”

To ensure trust, Yuen stresses both procedural fairness and substantive justice. “The company’s investigators should always ensure that their conclusions are properly derived and supported by relevant evidence.”

Whistleblower protections: From policy to practice

Yuen emphasizes that legal protections mean little without practical support. “Management needs to visibly lead by example and show that real, substantive and visible action is taken, not just to investigate the grievance,” he says.

Companies should take steps to protect and support whistleblowers beyond paper policies.

“Steps can include offering the whistle-blower a buddy to confide in… or assistance to obtain external guidance and counselling.”

Depending on the case, employers may even facilitate a temporary transfer. “Potentially even facilitate a temporary transfer to a different reporting line or function,” Yuen suggests, especially when needed to preserve safety or confidentiality.

How to investigate without bias

Internal investigations involving management or peers often place HR in a delicate position.

Yuen stresses the need to protect both complainants and respondents throughout the process.

“Due process and natural justice should be at the heart of every investigation,” he says.

“Management must be careful not to treat the respondent as already deemed guilty.”

He also cautions against allowing either party to dominate the pace or flow of the investigation.

“Management should not allow the complainant to interfere or dictate the pace, or unilaterally share updates, without also similarly updating the respondent.”

Local context vs global best practices

Multinational employers may find the WFA familiar but not identical to frameworks in other jurisdictions.

“While broadly similar to global standards, there are two differences,” Yuen notes.

First, the WFA’s definition of “sex” does not include sexual orientation and gender identity.

Still, Yuen says this doesn’t mean the government is ignoring LGBTQ+ issues.

“Manpower Minister Tan See Leng has explicitly assured that Singapore will not tolerate discrimination, including towards LGBTQ employees.”

Second, the law does not exist in isolation. “The WFA is meant to strengthen and complement the existing TGFEP... Protections for workers will extend further than those stipulated in the WFA, even if not explicitly provided for in the WFA.”

Lessons must not end with the investigation

The conclusion of an investigation shouldn’t be where learning stops. Yuen says companies need to formalize lessons learned to improve.

“Effective HR, legal and leadership teams adopt the good practice of formally internalising learnings and lessons,” he explains. That includes updating documents and procedures.

These lessons shouldn’t be kept behind closed doors. “They then publicly share these lessons with all staff through announcements, and remind all staff to conduct themselves in the substantive spirit of the company’s values.”

Why the right mindset still matters most

Even with legal reforms in place, company culture will determine the law’s effectiveness.

Some employers, Yuen warns, may still view complaints as disruptive rather than constructive.

“There will always be malignant employees who will abuse the complaints... But that should not be an excuse for employers to tar the vast majority of employees,” he says.

“Companies that treat employee complaints as an affront to the status quo or who try to silence or even punish those who raise complaints as ‘troublemakers’ will not just fall foul of the law, but will pay the ultimate price of pushing out good and valuable talent... [They might] become known as a toxic workplace and will struggle to attract and retain genuine talent.”

As implementation nears, employers would be wise to see the WFA not just as a regulatory requirement but as a springboard for creating fairer, more resilient workplaces.