Relook laws to address employee mental health
LETTERS: With work stress becoming prevalent among Malaysians, many employees are seeking legal redress. But, could it actually help?
Several concerns must be addressed to prevent additional problems to the employees’ mental state.
These are job insecurity, where employees felt anxious about losing their job if they develop any mental health issue; inadequate work arrangement due to the inability to adapt to the work changes, and work-life balance issues, especially increased household commitment due to schools being closed and disruptions during off working hours.Hence, are existing employment laws sufficient to deal with these concerns?
The Employment Act 1955 (EA 1955) does little to contribute to job security. The Act made it necessary for termination conditions to be made known to the employees.
Although this means that employers cannot easily dismiss employees, much depends on the signed contract. If the termination clauses are fulfilled, the law is on the employer’s side. Are employees aware of such termination clauses?
Next, several forms of leaves are prescribed for employees to take time off. Still, they are restricted to a specific period and circumstances.
Do employees use them to deal with mental health issues or use up their remaining annual leaves for such purposes? There’s no definitive answer.
The Occupational Safety and Health Act 1994 renders employers liable to take care of their employees’ wellbeing. Such liability was commonly noted to be limited to the company’s workplace.
The focus is more on whether the workplace poses a hazard to physical health, and nothing much on mental health. Does such liability extend to home offices where many Malaysians are working from?
Perhaps the saving grace could be the Persons with Disabilities Act 2008 (PDA 2008), an Act enacted to protect the interest of individuals with disabilities.
Long-term mental impairment is regarded as a disability under the PDA 2008. Therefore, their access to employment, equal opportunities, and safe and healthy working conditions free from harassment and discrimination are guaranteed.
Unfortunately treating mental health as a permanent disability ignores the fact that some mental illnesses are treatable and some can be controlled under treatment.
It is clear that these laws were drafted pre-pandemic where mental health issues were not so mainstream.
Some may argue that the ambiguity is to provide leeway for negotiations between employers and employees. Perhaps, but in reality, negotiations would favour employers, who view the EA 1955 as a mere minimum requirement.
Indeed, it is better for employment rights to be spelt out to serve as explicit guidance and a reminder to the employers and assurance to the employees.
Such a need is more relevant during a pandemic where businesses are closing down while court cases are piling up. Otherwise, the law is of no help either.
Prof Dr Ida Madieha Abdul Ghani Azmi, Dr Haniza Rais, Prof Dr Nora Mat Zin, Prof Dr Mushera Ambarass Khan, Faiz Naqiz Amirul Ramlisa
SMEC Research ProjectInternational Islamic University Malaysia
Source: Relook laws to address employee mental health (nst.com.my)