Three Burmese workers consult with TWC2 case officers and volunteers

On Tuesday, 6 January 2026, the Straits Times published a letter by TWC2 regarding the Employment Claims Tribunal:

Improve access to justice at the Employment Claims Tribunal

We thank Ms Sugidha Nithiananthan and Ms Caitlin C. Fernandez from AWARE for raising the important issue of access to the employment dispute resolution process at the Employment Claims Tribunal (ECT) (Taking employers to task for discrimination: How easy is the legal process?, Dec 29).

Transient Workers Count Too has, over the years, assisted many low-wage migrant workers throughout the ECT process – from initial filing to final resolution – pursuing salary and wrongful dismissal claims. As the article notes, the ECT process can be complex and intimidating, especially for migrant workers who lack community support or face language and cultural barriers.

We also wish to highlight the increasing length of the ECT process. In early 2024, the typical interval between claim registration and the first case management conference was about three weeks. In 2025, this doubled to six weeks. We have also seen hearings involving Burmese-speaking employees postponed by a month due to interpreter shortages.

These delays prolong stress and defer resolution, often worsening employees’ financial and emotional hardship.

We hope the relevant authorities give due attention to these resourcing and scheduling challenges so the ECT process remains timely, accessible and fair, particularly for those already structurally disadvantaged.

We also support the article’s call to broaden support for employees navigating the ECT process in anticipation of its jurisdiction expansion under the Workplace Fairness Act and the Workplace Fairness (Dispute Resolution) Act, highlighting where the ECT and the authorities can improve accessibility and address power imbalances.

One practical example is the Community Courts and Tribunals (CCT) Friend Scheme. With tribunal approval, an employee may be accompanied by a CCT Friend who provides emotional and administrative support. Most employees are unaware of this option until we advise them.

While CCT Friends cannot advocate for employees, they help explain instructions, take notes and locate documents. Our experience shows that this support empowers employees to participate fully in the process, leading to more equitable outcomes.

We support efforts to encourage more organisations to provide such assistance on a pro bono basis, and strongly urge that vulnerable employees be referred to appropriate organisations early in the process.

Transient Workers Count Too (TWC2)

As would be obvious from the opening of our letter, it echoes an earlier article in to the newspaper, which may be behind a paywall. Headlined Taking employers to task for discrimination: How easy is the legal process? (29 December 2025) we summarise its main points below.

That article opens with a reference to a Tiktok video by @uzentan.

A TikTok video showing a young man’s experience navigating the Employment Claims Tribunal (ECT) has been viewed more than 120,000 times, prompting comments about how daunting the process can be for employees. The man talks about the lack of information on the ECT process, how tedious preparing for it was, and the length of time the process took.

It mentions that now, workplace fairness and discrimination disputes will come under the Employment Claims Tribunal (ECT). It adds that the new Workplace Fairness (Dispute Resolution) Act

…expands its jurisdiction to claims of up to $250,000 and bars external lawyers, ostensibly to level the playing field for employees.

However,

If the process is too complex for the people it aims to protect, the law risks falling short of its promise.

Experience with the ECT so far suggests that “the process is far from evenly balanced.” In one case,

… her experience demonstrates how the process can be complicated and prolonged by allowing legally trained employees – or even the employer’s in-house lawyer – to represent a party. This gives employers an obvious, unfair advantage.

The article opines that for employees, the process can be “cumbersome, legalistic and time-consuming” and “governed by technical procedural rules.” More specifically, claimants (employees) need to:

  • gather documents;
  • obtain written witness statements;
  • compile bundles of documents (in multiple sets) for the hearing;
  • translate documents that are in a foreign language;
  • transcribe and submit in physical media such as DVDs audio and video files.

Errors during any step of the process can lead to delays or the exclusion of evidence.

The hearing is no less demanding, the article goes on to explain. Parties must

  • deliver opening statements;
  • cross-examine witnesses; and
  • make closing submissions.

These procedural challenges are compounded by a structural reality: the power imbalance between employers and employees. Employers have access to legal advice, human resource specialists, internal documents and institutional knowledge. Employees, by contrast, are typically individuals acting alone, often without the resources or confidence to seek professional advice.

Four suggestions to improve the ECT process were outlined:

  • Prohibit employers from being represented by legally trained employees;
  • Broaden support for employees beyond unions to include non-governmental organisations and pro bono bodies with relevant expertise;
  • Provide clear, practical advice and guidance to parties, e.g. administrative steps of the filing of the case, understanding what evidence is required and how to present their case effectively;
  • Modernise technical requirements e.g. requiring evidence to be submitted on DVDs are outdated and add unnecessary friction to an already challenging process.

The commentary concludes:

… the dispute resolution process must be genuinely accessible and fair. Loopholes, power imbalances and procedural barriers must be addressed so that fairness exists not just in law, but also in practice.