What can HR practitioners do when management disregards their advice?: Forum

The letter “Nominee directors need a stronger exit framework” (Aug 31), highlighting the difficulties faced by nominee directors with legal responsibilities but who may have limited control over the companies they represent, raised a related issue human resource practitioners in Singapore face.

HR practitioners are expected to understand employment and manpower requirements, identify areas of non-compliance, explain the risks and recommend corrective action. But what happens when that advice is not accepted?

This can be particularly challenging in industries such as F&B, where manpower shortages, long operating hours and cost pressures are common. HR may have to give advice on working hours, rest days, overtime payments, salary structures and deductions, leave entitlements and work-pass requirements.

Even after HR has checked the requirements, raised a concern and recommended changes, the response may be “This is market practice”, “We have been doing this for years”, or “MOM cannot possibly check every company”.

A practice does not become compliant simply because it is common, longstanding or has not attracted regulatory attention.

HR may document its advice and escalate the concern internally. However, without sufficient professional autonomy, how far can a practitioner realistically go when management decides to continue the practice?

Resignation is an option but it should not be the only practical answer. Leaving a job is not always simple, especially in an uncertain employment market and when employees have financial and family commitments.

The situation is even more difficult when HR is responsible for preparing or submitting information to government agencies. Practitioners need to know what they should do when an arrangement raises compliance concerns but management has declined to correct it.

Although suspected employment infringements may be reported confidentially to the Ministry of Manpower, reporting one’s employer is a significant step while the practitioner remains employed.

Clearer guidance is therefore needed. What records should HR retain? What level of internal escalation is expected? When should a practitioner refuse to process an instruction? What protection is available if a practitioner raises concerns in good faith and subsequently faces adverse consequences at work?

These are practical questions, particularly for HR practitioners in smaller organisations without independent legal or compliance teams.

If HR practitioners are expected to help companies comply with employment and manpower requirements, they need greater clarity and protection when their professional advice is disregarded.

Gwendolen  Lim Jing Yun

Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.

ADV: Bundle: Legal Innovation Workshop and TechLaw.Fest 2026 Two-Day Pass MAS seeks feedback on proposals regulating value, user protection for stablecoins