The primary difference between FWAs in Malaysia and Singapore lies in the breadth of categories. While Malaysia’s FWAs are more restricted in scope, Singapore has expanded its FWA options to encompass flexible workloads. This entails employees working with varying workloads, each matched with corresponding remuneration. An example of such flexibility is job sharing.

Job sharing involves dividing one job’s responsibilities between two or more people. It is useful when a position needs full-time attention but does not require just one person. Job sharing encourages the sharing of ideas and learning from each other. Additionally, it helps ensure tasks are covered when someone takes time off. However, having two people in one role does lead to an increase in overhead costs.

Grounds for Rejecting an FWA Application

Employers in Malaysia currently face uncertainty regarding the acceptable grounds for rejecting FWA applications. Looking to Singapore, where clear examples of acceptable grounds for rejecting FWA applications have been provided in the Tripartite Guidelines, Malaysian employers may find valuable guidance in navigating this aspect of FWA implementation.

(a) Costs

Granting an FWA application can impose a considerable financial burden on employers, particularly in scenarios where remote work is involved. For instance, certain FWAs may necessitate employers to cover expenses associated with establishing a home office, including investments in office supplies and high-speed internet connections for employees. Cumulatively, these costs can escalate, particularly if a significant portion of the workforce transitions to remote work arrangements.

 (b) Detrimental to Productivity or Output

Granting an FWA application may result in a notable decline in individual, team, or organisational productivity and output, particularly in instances where remote or flexible schedules are involved. Supervisors may encounter difficulties in effectively monitoring the performance and progress of employees who are working remotely or on flexible schedules. This can impede their ability to offer timely feedback, address performance concerns, and uphold accountability standards. Consequently, this situation has the potential to diminish both individual and team productivity levels.

(c) Feasibility or Practicality

Granting an FWA application may prove unfeasible or impractical in certain instances, particularly in industries characterised by manufacturing or production lines. These environments demand adherence to specific shifts or schedules to sustain uninterrupted operations and achieve production goals. Introducing flexible working arrangements within such settings risks disrupting workflow, prolonging downtime, and diminishing productivity levels.

Conclusion

In both jurisdictions, the absence of penalties for employers who reject employees’ FWA requests is notable. Instead, employers are obligated to provide reasons for the rejection, fostering transparency and accountability in the decision-making process. While this may initially seem stringent, it also offers an opportunity for constructive dialogue between employers and employees.

By fostering open communication and flexibility, employers can demonstrate their commitment to supporting employees’ work-life balance while ensuring the organisation’s operational needs are met. This proactive approach not only enhances employee satisfaction and morale but also contributes to a more inclusive and adaptable workplace culture.

If you have any queries, please contact Associate, Summer Chong Yue Han (yhc@lh-ag.com), or her team Partner, Shariffullah Majeed (sha@lh-ag.com).