HR firms favour encouraging, not mandating vaccines for staff

Singapore

AS Singapore's vaccination efforts ramp up, one question homes in on the role employers can play. While the legal question is not clear-cut, it is better to encourage but not mandate vaccination for staff, human resources (HR) consultants say.

A high vaccination rate would help Singapore enter the new normal - which is good news for businesses too, said Neil Narale, partner and health leader at Mercer Singapore.

It is a hot topic among employers and the HR community now, he said. "In fact, employers are mostly discussing best practices they can adopt when their staff go for vaccination such as additional time off, or flexibility in work arrangements on the day of their vaccinations."

Yvonne Teo, ADP's vice-president for HR in the Asia-Pacific, said: "From an employer's perspective, advantages include increasing deployment for front-line roles and expediting office re-opening, as well as business travel wherever possible."

But encouragement stops short of mandating it. Organisations are taking a "measured approach", noted Amitabh Deka, Aon's head of Wellbeing Solutions, South Asia, and Aon Care.

He cited two reasons: One is that vaccination is a personal decision; the other is the risk that a drive "may result in the perception that the employer takes responsibility if there are side effects, or, in the rare case, infection, despite being vaccinated". Both considerations have legal liability implications, with much at risk for employers, he said.

Betul Genc, country manager at Adecco Singapore and Spring Professional, said employers need to handle these conversations with utmost sensitivity and understanding.

"The objective should be to always educate and express care for the wellbeing of employees, rather than force them or make them feel obligated to take the vaccine," she said.

Replying to a parliamentary question in April, then Manpower Minister Josephine Teo said that MOM had not received complaints about employers punishing or penalising employees who decline to be vaccinated.

The tripartite partners are discussing "acceptable employer policies with respect to vaccination of their workforce", and will release guidance "at the appropriate time", she said.

A survey by Aon found that only 5 per cent of respondents in Singapore intend to make vaccination mandatory "where allowed by law", with another 9 per cent considering this.

For now, the legal question seems open. As an article in the Law Society of Singapore's Law Gazette noted, it is hard to state either way as "what is a 'reasonable direction' by an employer can be open to interpretation".

An employee refusing to be vaccinated is not grounds for termination "unless the employer can justify that it is a lawful and reasonable direction", said the article.

A written policy on mandatory vaccination by the employer should avoid discriminatory language by providing exemptions; it should also exclude measures that might be seen as unreasonable.

Jaya Dass, managing director at Randstad Singapore and Malaysia, said new HR policies should not make employees feel their employment will be at risk if they do not take the vaccine. But job scope should be taken into consideration, as some may be at higher risk than others, she added.

Firms may need to evaluate their travel and health policies regarding employees who are not vaccinated but need to travel frequently; these employees may need to be moved internally to other duties without affecting their job and financial security, she said.

HR consultancy HR Law Academy has addressed such concerns in seminars. As the government's stance is that vaccination is not compulsory, it would generally not be reasonable for employers to mandate it, said its executive director Arthur Khong.

But he added that legal issues aside, "employers should consider the potential impact that a mandatory vaccination programme will have on employee morale".

Employers can instead offer incentives. But these should be modest, and not so large that they induce staff to get vaccinated, he added.

In the Aon survey, 34 per cent of respondents intend to provide incentives such as time off. Providing a day off or a paid rest day if workers are unwell can help "push the needle", said David Leong, managing director of HR search and consulting firm PeopleWorldwide Consulting.

But some question whether the onus should even be on employers when it comes to nudging more Singaporeans to take the shot.

Singapore University of Social Sciences economist Walter Theseira, said while it makes sense for employers to want staff to be vaccinated, "employment is not the right lever to convince people to get vaccinated".

"Although there have been no studies of vaccination hesitancy by demographic group in Singapore, we know from research elsewhere that economically marginalised groups not only tend to suffer more from Covid-19, but also tend to have more concerns about vaccination because of their pre-existing poor experiences with the health system, or their lack of coverage by the mainstream health system," he said.

Using employment as a lever risks worsening inequalities, since it could result in unemployment or force people to put aside their concerns in order to make a living, he said.

There is still work to do in communicating the benefits of vaccination, and to address the concerns of those who are reluctant, he said. "This should be a responsibility borne by society, not something delegated to employers," he said, adding that doing so may risk disproportionate impact on lower-income workers.

As to a parallel question of whether landlords may bar unvaccinated tenants or visitors from their premises, Yuen Law LLC managing director Samuel Yuen said: "This is ultimately a risk-management issue, but it is potentially discriminatory."

TSMP Law Corporation partner Jennifer Chia said that while landlords have an exclusive right to possession and may exclude any person from their premises, they have to avoid discrimination against those who are ineligible or not yet vaccinated.

There are also considerations such as whether barring unvaccinated tenants would be in breach of tenancy agreements, and whether landlords may compel the disclosure of such personal data, said David Lim & Partners LLP partner Koong Len Sheng.