SINGAPORE: The third executive who was sacked by Singapore Post this month after a probe into a whistleblower’s report said that he will contest the decision.
In a post on LinkedIn on Tuesday (Dec 24), Mr Li Yu, the former chief executive of the company’s international business unit said he was "left with no option but to take affirmative steps" to contest the termination. He also called the sacking unfair, saying it was without merit.
SingPost on Saturday terminated the employment of Mr Li, along with group chief executive officer Vincent Phang and group chief financial officer Vincent Yik.
This came after a probe into a whistleblower’s report had found "grossly negligent" behaviour in their handling of internal investigations.
"I will also seek to enforce my legal rights and vindicate my personal reputation. Suffice to state for present purposes, I disagree with the alleged reasons given and will robustly defend my position in the proper forum," said Mr Li.
"With regards to the whistleblowing reports mentioned ... I wish to state briefly and categorically that I reject any and all statements that I was in breach of and/or was grossly negligent in my duties and/or that I failed to act or perform my duties responsibly and reliably."
He said that he was very clear that he has duly and fully performed his duties in compliance with his obligations and all of the company's policies and directions.
"I am very disappointed by the company's decision and aggrieved that the company has thought it fit to levy such allegations against me, which were wholly unnecessary," he said.
"As the company has escalated the matter despite my desire to resolve matters amicably, I am left with no option but to take affirmative steps to contest the termination of my employment and the alleged reasons, as well as the alleged disciplinary proceedings, which were neither due nor fair," he added.
"I will also seek to enforce my legal rights and vindicate my personal reputation."
Earlier this week, Mr Phang and Mr Yik said in a statement that they would "vigorously contest" their firing.
"We disagree with and are disappointed at the decision of the board to terminate us from our roles at the company after years of dedicated and committed service. It is our position that the termination is without merits, and was also procedurally unfair," they added.
In response to CNA queries about this matter, a SingPost spokesperson said on Tuesday: “We are confident of our legal position and will address this at the appropriate time and forum if necessary.
"In light of possible litigation, we are unable to provide any further comment on this issue.”
SingPost said the first whistleblowing report was received in January this year, with investigations taking place after that.
The report alleged that there were manual entries of certain delivery status codes by SingPost's international business unit. These were for international transhipment parcels which the company had agreed to deliver under an agreement with one of its largest customers.
These manual entries were allegedly done without basis or supporting documentation and with the intention of avoiding contractual penalties under the agreement.
Findings from the investigations by the group internal audit were made known as early as March and April.
An external law firm and forensics service provider were subsequently engaged to conduct further investigations, which concluded sometime in August.
Three unidentified managers directly involved in the case went through disciplinary proceedings, and they were found to have committed serious breaches of the company’s code of conduct.
They performed or approved manual "delivery failure" status codes for parcels, even though no delivery attempt had been made and without supporting documents, said SingPost.
The three managers have since been sacked and a police report was made against them.
A whistleblowing report on the same matter was also sent to the Infocomm Media Development Authority of Singapore, SingPost said on Sunday.
External professional advisers were engaged to review and assess the matter independently of management.
SingPost said that the three senior executives were found to be "grossly negligent" in relation to their handling of internal investigations into the whistleblowing reports and renewal of the related agreement.
They also "omitted to consider material facts that compromised their decision-making and/or failed to perform their duties responsibly and reliably".
In particular relation to the handling of the whistleblowing reports, SingPost said it was found that Mr Phang, Mr Yik and Mr Li had "accorded undue weight" to the misrepresentations by representatives from the international business unit operations.
They did so without any independent substantiation or evidence, and had in turn made various serious misrepresentations to the audit committee, said SingPost.
Given the seriousness of these lapses and findings, SingPost said its board lost confidence and trust in the judgment of the three senior executives and in their ability to perform their duties towards promoting and protecting the interests of the company.
Continue reading...
In a post on LinkedIn on Tuesday (Dec 24), Mr Li Yu, the former chief executive of the company’s international business unit said he was "left with no option but to take affirmative steps" to contest the termination. He also called the sacking unfair, saying it was without merit.
SingPost on Saturday terminated the employment of Mr Li, along with group chief executive officer Vincent Phang and group chief financial officer Vincent Yik.
This came after a probe into a whistleblower’s report had found "grossly negligent" behaviour in their handling of internal investigations.
"I will also seek to enforce my legal rights and vindicate my personal reputation. Suffice to state for present purposes, I disagree with the alleged reasons given and will robustly defend my position in the proper forum," said Mr Li.
"With regards to the whistleblowing reports mentioned ... I wish to state briefly and categorically that I reject any and all statements that I was in breach of and/or was grossly negligent in my duties and/or that I failed to act or perform my duties responsibly and reliably."
He said that he was very clear that he has duly and fully performed his duties in compliance with his obligations and all of the company's policies and directions.
"I am very disappointed by the company's decision and aggrieved that the company has thought it fit to levy such allegations against me, which were wholly unnecessary," he said.
"As the company has escalated the matter despite my desire to resolve matters amicably, I am left with no option but to take affirmative steps to contest the termination of my employment and the alleged reasons, as well as the alleged disciplinary proceedings, which were neither due nor fair," he added.
"I will also seek to enforce my legal rights and vindicate my personal reputation."
Earlier this week, Mr Phang and Mr Yik said in a statement that they would "vigorously contest" their firing.
Related:
"We disagree with and are disappointed at the decision of the board to terminate us from our roles at the company after years of dedicated and committed service. It is our position that the termination is without merits, and was also procedurally unfair," they added.
In response to CNA queries about this matter, a SingPost spokesperson said on Tuesday: “We are confident of our legal position and will address this at the appropriate time and forum if necessary.
"In light of possible litigation, we are unable to provide any further comment on this issue.”
INVESTIGATIONS
SingPost said the first whistleblowing report was received in January this year, with investigations taking place after that.
The report alleged that there were manual entries of certain delivery status codes by SingPost's international business unit. These were for international transhipment parcels which the company had agreed to deliver under an agreement with one of its largest customers.
These manual entries were allegedly done without basis or supporting documentation and with the intention of avoiding contractual penalties under the agreement.
Findings from the investigations by the group internal audit were made known as early as March and April.
An external law firm and forensics service provider were subsequently engaged to conduct further investigations, which concluded sometime in August.
Three unidentified managers directly involved in the case went through disciplinary proceedings, and they were found to have committed serious breaches of the company’s code of conduct.
They performed or approved manual "delivery failure" status codes for parcels, even though no delivery attempt had been made and without supporting documents, said SingPost.
The three managers have since been sacked and a police report was made against them.
"FAILED TO PERFORM THEIR DUTIES"
A whistleblowing report on the same matter was also sent to the Infocomm Media Development Authority of Singapore, SingPost said on Sunday.
External professional advisers were engaged to review and assess the matter independently of management.
SingPost said that the three senior executives were found to be "grossly negligent" in relation to their handling of internal investigations into the whistleblowing reports and renewal of the related agreement.
They also "omitted to consider material facts that compromised their decision-making and/or failed to perform their duties responsibly and reliably".
In particular relation to the handling of the whistleblowing reports, SingPost said it was found that Mr Phang, Mr Yik and Mr Li had "accorded undue weight" to the misrepresentations by representatives from the international business unit operations.
They did so without any independent substantiation or evidence, and had in turn made various serious misrepresentations to the audit committee, said SingPost.
Given the seriousness of these lapses and findings, SingPost said its board lost confidence and trust in the judgment of the three senior executives and in their ability to perform their duties towards promoting and protecting the interests of the company.
Related:
Continue reading...