The tough economic times - and more generous maternity benefits - appear to be prompting increasing numbers of firms to fire pregnant women or deny them their full entitlements.

There were 119 'pregnancy- related' complaints lodged with the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) in the first nine months of the year - up from 72 for the whole of 2007, and 95 last year.

That is the highest since records began in 2004 and represents a doubling of the rate per month compared with 2007.

Some women claimed they were sacked under the pretence of poor performance or other work-related issues so employers could avoid meeting maternity payment obligations. Others claimed they were underpaid or denied maternity benefits.

About 75per cent of the complaints were from women working in small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

The increase is largely a result of new regulations that have substantially increased maternity benefits and the tough economic times, said an MOM spokesman. Greater awareness due to heightened publicity could also have led to the spike, the spokesman said.

The new rules came into effect just over a year ago on Oct31 last year, just as Singapore was entering a recession.

Most of the cases have been settled, with payments being made to the women, while about two dozen complaints are pending.

Some employers are unclear or unaware of their obligations under the new laws, said Ms Ng Hwei Min, director for operations policy and compliance at MOM's Labour Relations and Welfare Division.

'Most employers comply immediately after our advice,' she added.

Ms Ng advises companies to tell employees clearly and in a timely way if there are performance-related problems. This will prevent a worker from believing she has been fired for her pregnancy rather than poor performance.

The deputy secretary-general of the National Trades Union Congress, Madam Halimah Yacob, pointed out that problems regarding discrimination always loom larger in tough times.

She said such disputes could be minimised if companies embraced progressive human-resource practices, such as the setting up of proper grievance-recording procedures and fair and transparent performance-appraisal systems.

'This way, if termination is necessary, pregnant women know that they have been given a fair chance,' said Madam Halimah, who co-chairs the Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices (Tafep), which seeks to promote merit-based employment practices.

In some cases, MOM tries to help even if the company has ostensibly broken no law.

A 36-year-old service coordinator in a manufacturing firm was handed a retrenchment letter on the day she returned from maternity leave in May. It was downsizing and others were laid off too.

But while her other colleagues got four months' pay in lieu of the lack of notice and compensation, as stipulated in all contracts, including hers, she had only two months' pay.

'I was shocked,' said the mother of two, who declined to be named. 'They paid my maternity benefits, then denied me my compensation.'

She appealed to MOM, which helped her recover part of the money.

The new maternity regulations could not have come at a worse time for small firms struggling with the downturn, said Mr Lawrence Leow, president of the Association of Small and Medium Enterprises.

'When business is down, they may not be able to afford to hire temporary staff or outsource functions,' he added. But that was no excuse for sacking pregnant staff without cause.

'We need to educate them to look out for staff who may get pregnant and plan ahead,' he added.

This could include roping in people from other departments to share the workload and stagger the four-month maternity leave. The law allows for the last two months of leave to be taken at a later time.

In a handful of cases investigated by MOM, pregnant women or new mothers withdrew their complaints after being unable to prove their allegations.

One was a 26-year-old marketing communications executive who had asked to be sacked - by requesting a termination letter from the company - in the last trimester of her pregnancy.

The letter - or proof of dismissal - is necessary for complainants to approach MOM.

She was working for the entertainment and events management firm Music and Movement and was unhappy at being transferred to another department with lower pay.

She told MOM she had been sacked because she was pregnant but investigations revealed that she was an unconfirmed employee and the company had found her performance to be unsatisfactory, said MOM.

The ministry also found that the salary offered to her in her new position was comparable to the salaries paid to others in that position.

The firm's chief executive, Mr Lim Sek, said: 'She was the one who refused to sign the new contract, which was the best we could offer under the circumstances. Despite her poor performance, we did not kick her out.'

[email protected]

This article was first published in The Sunday Times.