Preparing for the Workplace Fairness Act: Dispute resolution, risks and next steps for employers

At a glance

• On 4 November 2025, Singapore's Parliament passed the Workplace Fairness (Dispute Resolution) Bill, which establishes a dispute resolution framework for workplace discrimination claims.
• With this second bill passed, the full framework for workplace fairness claims has now been confirmed.
• The implementation timeline has now been confirmed, with the Workplace Fairness Act (WFA) expected to take effect by end-2027. This will provide employers with more time to familiarise and prepare themselves for these new statutory rules and obligations. 

---

This alert focuses on key updates under the Workplace Fairness (Dispute Resolution) Bill and its impact on employers. 

For more information regarding the Workplace Fairness Act, please refer to our previous updates: Consultation paper on the second Workplace Fairness Bill - DLA Piper GENIE and First Workplace Fairness Bill introduced in Singapore to protect employees against discrimination - DLA Piper GENIE

Three-step process

The WFA requires parties to go through a three-step process to resolve a dispute.

First, the WFA strongly encourages resolving disputes amicably between employer and employee as far as possible. Employers are required to implement an internal grievance handling process to facilitate dispute resolution at the company level first. Broadly, employers must inquire into, and review, each grievance; inform the employee of the outcome (if any) of the review; keep written records; and protect the confidentiality of the employee and all grievance‑related information, unless disclosure is reasonably necessary. This written process must also be communicated to all employees in writing.

Second, if these processes fail to resolve the dispute, mediation must then be attempted via a third-party mediator. This aligns with, and expands upon, the existing mandatory mediation-first framework for current Employment Claims Tribunal (ECT) claims.

Third, if parties are unable to resolve the dispute through mediation, the workplace discrimination claim can proceed to the ECT or the High Court for adjudication as a last resort.

Framework

In terms of the dispute resolution forum, the ECT will be designated to hear workplace discrimination claims up to and including SGD250,000, in order to make the ECT accessible to more employees (including professionals, managers and executives who earn higher salaries). This is much higher than the existing limit of SGD30,000 permissible employment claims at the ECT. Unlike 'normal' courts, the ECT adopts a judge-led approach with simplified rules and procedures, and legal representation is not allowed. This process makes it more affordable, expeditious, and easier to navigate. According to Manpower Ministry Tan See Leng, cases at the ECT are resolved within 6 months.

High-value discrimination claims above SGD250,000 will proceed to the High Court, which currently applies for other types of high-value employment claims today.

Given the sensitive nature of workplace discrimination disputes, all workplace discrimination claims will be heard in private at both the ECT and High Court. Private forums create a safe space for parties to share their views and excludes third parties who may publicly misrepresent and sensationalise issues. However, WFA judgments are expected to be made publicly accessible in the future, and work is already underway to operationalise this.

Employer safeguards 

In terms of safeguards for employers, to deter frivolous and vexatious claims, employers can apply to strike out frivolous and vexatious claims, and judges will also be empowered to do so on their own accord. Individuals who bring such claims may be investigated by the police for abusing the court's processes, and costs may be awarded against them. If they persist in pursuing these claims, they can be restrained from commencing further legal proceedings.

Conclusion

Overall, the WFA represents a major turning point in Singapore’s employment landscape, signalling a shift towards stronger safeguards, clearer expectations of fair conduct and a more structured approach to resolving workplace issues. The government and public commentary have emphasised that the WFA is intended not merely as a legal framework, but as a broader cultural shift to encourage employers and employees alike to elevate fairness and transparency as core features of a modern and progressive workplace.

These reforms are likely to lead to an increase in employment disputes given the substantial increase in claim cap – from SGD30,000 for existing claims brought to the ECT, to SGD250,000 for workplace discrimination claims. Employers should be prepared for employees to reference discrimination more frequently to gain strategic leverage. In addition, WFA discrimination claims may be co‑mingled with existing employment claims (such as wrongful dismissal, contractual disputes or salary‑related issues). This may result in more complex, multi‑layered proceedings, particularly where factual allegations overlap across different statutory and common law frameworks.

Given that statutory workplace discrimination claims are novel in Singapore, employees may not know how to justify their claim amounts, especially since legal representation is not allowed at the ECT. Correspondingly, employers may also be concerned about unnecessary inflation of claim values. It is likely that the Ministry of Manpower or the Tripartite Partners will issue guidance on how parties can make a fair and balanced assessment of what a reasonable claim amount is.

For future planning, employers should review current processes and policies, including any existing hiring, grievance, anti-discrimination and non-retaliation policies to ensure they are compliant with the requirements under the WFA.

Lastly, employers should also be mindful of reputational concerns, especially since WFA judgments are intended to be made publicly accessible (as well as other ECT judgments).

For any enquiries about what these updates will mean for your business, please contact David Smail, Shu Ying Chua or Michelle Chua.

*DLA Piper is restricted for regulatory reasons from practising local law in Singapore. This article is not intended to constitute the general dispensation of advice on Singapore law.