NTUC Raises Concern Over Employers Repackaging Retrenchments as “New Opportunities” by Asking Workers to Reapply for Overseas Roles
Swedish fashion retailer H&M has come under scrutiny after staff in East Asia, including Singapore, said they were asked to reapply for 178 roles as part of a regional restructuring effort. According to employees who spoke to CNA, workers could nominate themselves for up to two positions, many of which have been shifted from Singapore to other countries in the region. Candidates must go through interviews and assessments to secure a post. Those who are not selected may be separated under “mutual separation” arrangements, in line with local labour laws.
Singapore’s Ministry of Manpower confirmed on Tuesday, June 2, that it had received a mandatory retrenchment notification from H&M within the required five working days after affected employees were informed. H&M, which is not unionised in Singapore, did not confirm whether the changes involved layoffs or relocations when previously asked by CNA. In response to concerns raised by NTUC, the company said it remained committed to supporting employees through organisational changes and would continue to meet its obligations under local labour law.
The case has renewed debate over whether some restructuring exercises are, in effect, retrenchments by another name. Manpower experts said companies sometimes avoid the term “retrenchment” when cutting jobs or moving functions, preferring words such as restructuring or calibration to reduce the negative optics. In practice, they said, this can leave affected workers with weaker bargaining power in negotiations over severance and other exit terms.
Under Singapore tripartite guidelines, retrenchment is defined as dismissal due to redundancy or reorganisation of a company’s business or work. If an employer ends a contract and does not intend to fill the role soon, it is generally presumed to be retrenchment. While retrenchment benefits are not legally mandatory, the Tripartite Advisory on Managing Excess Manpower and Responsible Retrenchment recommends a norm of two weeks to one month’s salary per year of service.
Human resources consultant Archana Srinivasan said cost pressures and the need to stay competitive are pushing more companies toward restructuring and calibration exercises rather than direct retrenchments. She noted that some reorganisations are legitimate responses to regionalisation, automation, or changing business needs, and may still result in real job losses. In other cases, however, she said the language may be used to soften what is essentially a workforce reduction.
HR practitioner Ian Liew said the terminology often does not change the substance of what happens to workers. He said key indicators of whether a company is genuinely redeploying staff include whether the process is fair, whether employees are given meaningful chances to interview for alternative roles, and whether compensation and relocation support are adequate. The H&M case highlights growing concerns about how companies manage job cuts, regional shifts, and employee rights during corporate restructuring.
