For most employers, a discrimination complaint reaching the Employment Claims Tribunal represents a failure – not just a legal one, but an organisational one. It means something went unaddressed for long enough to become a formal dispute. Singapore’s Workplace Fairness Act (WFA) has made workplace mediation a mandatory step in that process, which changes how employers need to think about prevention, documentation, and early intervention. Getting ready for the WFA is not just about legal compliance. It is about building the kind of workplace where disputes get resolved long before they reach an external mediator.
This article explains how the dispute resolution process works under the WFA, what it means for employers practically, and how a DEI audit can help organisations identify and fix the gaps that tend to produce claims in the first place.
How the Workplace Fairness Act Reshapes Dispute Resolution
The WFA introduces Singapore’s first codified framework for workplace discrimination claims. It covers the full employment lifecycle – from hiring and performance management through to termination – and creates a structured process for employees who believe they have been treated unfairly based on protected characteristics.
Understanding that process is the starting point for any employer preparing for the Act.
The Three-Tier System
The WFA establishes a three-tiered dispute resolution system focused on resolving disputes amicably where possible. This includes internal grievance handling, a mediation-first approach, and adjudication as a last resort.
Each tier represents a point where an employer has the opportunity to resolve an issue – and a point where poor preparation can make things significantly worse.
Why Mediation Is Now Mandatory
Under the previous advisory framework, mediation was encouraged but not required. The WFA changes that. Prior mediation is now mandatory before a claim may be brought to the Employment Claims Tribunal or the General Division of the High Court.
This means that even if an employer believes a complaint is without merit, they must engage with the workplace mediation process before the case can proceed to adjudication. For employers who are unprepared – who lack documentation, have inconsistent manager practices, or cannot explain how decisions were made – the mediation stage can be uncomfortable and costly.
What Happens at Each Stage of a Claim
Understanding the full claims pathway gives HR and legal teams a clearer picture of where preparation pays off and where gaps tend to surface.
Internal Grievance Handling Comes First
Employees must first raise discrimination concerns through their employer’s internal grievance process, which is now a mandatory requirement under the Workplace Fairness Act. This is the stage that most employers can most directly control.
A well-designed internal process – with clear timelines, trained investigators, and documented outcomes – can resolve many disputes before they go any further. Organisations that skip this stage, or have a process that exists only on paper, will find themselves at a disadvantage from the outset.
Mediation Through TADM
If internal resolution fails, the employee submits a mediation request to the Commissioner for Workplace Fairness. For disputes up to SGD 30,000, mediators from the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) handle the case. Mediation is to be held in private and conducted as soon as reasonably practicable.
It is worth noting that at mediation, legal representation is generally not permitted. At mediation, individuals must act in person and cannot have legal representation – though union representation is allowed for union members. This levels the playing field somewhat, but it also means the quality of an employer’s documentation and the credibility of their process carries significant weight.
Adjudication at the Employment Claims Tribunal
If workplace mediation does not produce a settlement, the employee can proceed to the Employment Claims Tribunal. The Workplace Fairness Act allows the Employment Claims Tribunal to hear claims in respect of discrimination for sums of up to SGD 250,000 – a significant increase from the tribunal’s previous jurisdictional limit.
Claims above that threshold go to the General Division of the High Court, where legal representation is permitted. For most employers, the ECT is the more likely forum – and the one where being caught without clear records and consistent processes will hurt most.
What Employers Are Most Exposed to Right Now
The WFA is set to come into force at the end-2027, but the time to prepare is now. The gaps that produce discrimination claims do not appear overnight – they build up through years of informal practices, undertrained managers, and undocumented decisions.
Undocumented Employment Decisions
This is the single most common gap identified in employer readiness assessments. When a candidate is not shortlisted, when a promotion goes to one person over another, or when a performance review produces a poor outcome, there should be a clear record of how and why that decision was made.
Without that documentation, an employer facing a discrimination claim cannot demonstrate that the decision was based on merit. The absence of records does not prove discrimination, but it makes a claim very difficult to defend. Common gaps include undocumented decisions, inconsistent manager practices, and unclear complaint processes. For example, allowing one manager to bypass performance criteria while others follow them creates exposure.
Inconsistent Manager Behaviour
Managers are the point at which most employment decisions are made and most grievances arise. If different managers in the same organisation are applying different standards – for performance reviews, for leave approvals, for promotion considerations – that inconsistency is both unfair and legally risky.
All relevant employees, particularly managers, should be trained on the protected characteristics, how to make and document objective merit-based decisions, what constitutes discriminatory behaviour, and what the internal processes and procedures are regarding any incidents. This is not a one-off exercise. It needs to be embedded into how managers operate day-to-day.
Policies That Exist But Are Not Followed
Many organisations have discrimination and grievance policies that are technically compliant but practically unused. They sit in an employee handbook that nobody reads, refer to processes that are not actually in place, and provide no real protection when a complaint arises.
A policy only reduces legal risk if it is communicated, understood, and consistently applied. Auditing the gap between what the policy says and what actually happens is one of the most valuable things an employer can do before the WFA comes into force.
Why Early Intervention Through a DEI Audit Matters
Waiting for a claim to materialise before reviewing your practices is the most expensive approach an employer can take. A DEI audit identifies the specific points of exposure before they become formal complaints – and gives organisations a clear, prioritised plan for addressing them.
What a DEI Audit Actually Covers
A structured DEI audit reviews the systems and practices that shape employment decisions. This includes hiring and shortlisting processes, performance review frameworks, promotion criteria, grievance handling procedures, and manager training records.
It also looks at employee experience data – engagement survey results, exit interview themes, and complaint patterns – to understand where employees feel things are working and where they do not. The goal is to surface issues early, when they are still organisational problems rather than legal ones.
By the way, this kind of structured assessment also gives employers something concrete to show regulators if they are ever asked to demonstrate their WFA readiness. Organisations that follow structured assessments are better positioned to respond confidently. Include Consulting provides DEI readiness assessments designed for Singapore employers, reviewing policies, hiring practices, decision frameworks, and leadership alignment.
Connecting the Audit to Manager Training
An audit without action is just a report. The findings need to translate into practical changes – and for most organisations, that means manager training is a priority output.
Managers who understand what the protected characteristics are, how bias enters decision-making, and what their obligations are under the WFA are significantly less likely to make the kinds of decisions that produce discrimination claims. They are also better equipped to handle early-stage concerns appropriately – which keeps issues at the internal grievance stage, where they are far easier to resolve.
The Workplace Fairness Act readiness guide on Include Consulting’s insights page is a useful reference point for understanding what that preparation looks like across all employment practices, not just recruitment.
What Good Preparation Actually Looks Like
Preparation for the WFA is not a single project with a clear end point. It is a set of ongoing practices that, taken together, significantly reduce the likelihood of discrimination claims arising in the first place.
Formalise the Internal Grievance Process
Employers should review their existing grievance processes to ensure they are clear and practical, as this would be their primary tool to resolve issues before they escalate to mediation and adjudication. The process should be written down, communicated to all employees, and actually used when concerns are raised.
This means having a named contact for complaints, a defined timeline for acknowledgement and investigation, and a clear process for communicating outcomes. It also means protecting confidentiality and prohibiting retaliation – both of which the WFA specifically addresses.
Build Documentation Into the Process
Documentation should not be something that happens after the fact. It should be built into how decisions are made – as part of shortlisting, as part of performance reviews, as part of any conversation where an employment outcome is determined.
Structured scorecards, standardised interview questions, and consistent review templates all serve this purpose. They make the process more consistent and they produce a record that can be reviewed and explained. If your organisation does not have these in place, that is one of the first things a DEI audit will flag.
Train Managers Consistently
Just thought it worth pointing out – manager training needs to be consistent across teams and levels, not limited to senior leadership or new hires. The risk of discriminatory decisions is distributed across the organisation, and so training needs to be too.
This is also an area where investing in inclusive practices training – not just compliance training – pays dividends. Managers who understand how bias operates are more thoughtful decision-makers in general, not just in situations that carry legal risk. The insights on DEI strategies for Singapore leaders from Include Consulting cover this in practical detail.
Conclusion: Prevention Is the Most Effective Workplace Mediation Strategy
The best outcome under the WFA is one where a dispute never reaches external workplace mediation at all – because it was identified early, handled fairly internally, and resolved before it became a claim. That outcome depends on having the right systems, trained managers, and consistent documentation in place well before any complaint arises.
The time available before the WFA comes into force is an opportunity, not a buffer. Organisations that use it to genuinely review and improve their practices will be better positioned legally, and they will also be better places to work.
If your organisation wants to understand where your current practices stand – and what needs to change before the WFA takes effect – Include Consulting can help. Our DEI consulting and advisory services are designed to give employers a clear, practical picture of their risk areas and a structured plan for addressing them. Get in touch to start that conversation.
