Employment contract with consultant

[Mad Scientist]

This is absolute nonsense. Employment Contract supersedes Employment Act

Normally does not (unless stated otherwise) but this is simply irrelevant as not everything has to be claimed from the Employment Act. Likely it can be claimed as any other damage (if possible to prove) under general civil law statutes.

I guess you have not run business in Singapore. Employee or employer to settle dispute in Singapore is a complete waste of time and more than ever it will not go down this path. Unless you are being employed by the Gahmen or headhunted for your skills that is HIGHLY sought after where your contract has been written explicitly to protect both party interest. That will be different kettle of fish altogether.
Having employed staffs by myself although we tried our best to treat our staff with fairness, there will be one or two disgruntle ones that will cause havoc. This is quite normal in running a business.
Employer will use the employment contract as the first line of claims/damages to the employee in default. It is relevant to the subject in dispute. Employee who feels being unfairly treated can go to MOM if your pay packet per month is less than $2K(not sure on the exact figure). 99% MOM will inform the employee to settle it with the employer or engage a lawyer which will cost far more than the dispute itself. MOM are more interested in illegal employment, or it become a headline news etc than to deal with this dispute which is petty to them.
From my years in business NOT ONE employee that has disputes with us resulted in litigation or settled by MOM. I had this issue years ago and the reply I got from MOM " The Employment Act is a guideline for employee in the case of being unfairly treated. The Employment Act signed by the employee will supersede the Employment Act whereby the Employment Act guidelines provided has being adhered.
In the case of disputes, we would advise both parties to resolve the issue amicably. Failure to resolve this, we will encourage both parties to settle this in civil court of Singapore."
This also apply to those that has signed the contract and did not turn up for work on the first day. Although I generally will not ask them to compensate me for the time wasted if the cost is negligible. This is not the case when the employee engages a employment agencies as they are running a business and they will not be paid from the employer that engages them if the employee did not turn up for work.

[x9200]

MS, I think you might have missed the point. Every statute supersedes by its legal nature any legal agreement. This is how the law works. As long as something is defined/restricted under the statue it has to be followed. If it's not, than you have the freedom do define by yourself. If the Employment Act gives you this freedom it does not mean it is superseded by a contract but just allows it.
2nd part.. I am not sure if I understood. An example: a company hired a guy who supposed to manufacture some goods being in high demand. The guy broke the contract so the company needed some time to find a replacement. During this period no goods were produced so the company encountered a profit loss. Assuming the company acting reasonably and being able to document/prove the loss are you now saying that no damage can be claimed corresponding to this loss with the CIVIL lawsuit?

[revhappy]

tough titties that you got another offer - you shouldnt have have signed the first agreement to begin with if you had doubts on your ability to commit.

issh....

Thats easier said than done

[sundaymorningstaple]

tough titties that you got another offer - you shouldnt have have signed the first agreement to begin with if you had doubts on your ability to commit.

issh....

Thats easier said than done

Not if your own personal ethics code is good enough it isn't.