In some countries, grievance procedures are governed by specific legal requirements or mandatory internal committees. In others, employers primarily follow internal policies and recommended guidelines, with legal obligations developing over time through official guidance or legislative changes.

In this overview, we look at how employee grievances are managed in India, South Korea, and Singapore, explaining the relevant legal requirements and common employer practices.

India has statutory grievance mechanisms for certain categories of employees, generally those falling within the legal definition of ‘workmen.’ Employers with 20 or more workmen are required to establish Grievance Redressal Committees, which must include equal representation from both employer and employee sides. In certain states, local rules modify this requirement. For example, in Karnataka, the threshold for IT establishments is higher. Grievances raised through these committees must be resolved within 30 days.

For specific issues such as sexual harassment, the law mandates the formation of Internal Committees with defined procedures and protections. Various statutes also require the appointment of designated officers or committees to address grievances raised by particular protected groups, such as those with disabilities, transgender employees, or employees living with HIV. As a result, grievance handling in India is highly segmented, with different mechanisms applying to different categories of employees and complaints. Nevertheless, where permitted, many organisations centralise grievance management within HR functions to streamline processes and ensure compliance.

South Korea’s statutory framework for employee grievance handling is relatively limited, except for specific provisions relating to workplace harassment. For general grievances, employers with 30 or more employees must establish a Labour-Management Council (LMC) with equal employer and employee representation. The LMC is responsible for forming a grievance-handling committee, consisting of up to three of its members. Once a grievance is raised, the committee must notify the employee of the action taken within ten days, although there is no specific penalty for failing to comply with this notification requirement.

Outside of these statutory requirements, most employers address grievance handling through their own internal employment rules, disciplinary procedures, or codes of conduct. While some organisations choose to implement more detailed internal grievance processes, this is not mandated by law. As a result, grievance management in South Korea combines minimal statutory prescription and employer-driven internal policies.

In Singapore, there is currently no statutory framework of general application governing how employee grievances must be handled. Instead, employers are guided by the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices, which recommend that all complaints of discrimination and other grievances be taken seriously, investigated properly, and addressed promptly. The guidelines also emphasise confidentiality, fairness, non-retaliation, and, for unionised employers, the involvement of unions in the process. The Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices has further issued a Grievance Handling Handbook, which outlines recommended procedural steps, escalation paths, and documentation standards for managing employee complaints.

This position is set to change with the introduction of the Workplace Fairness Act. Once in force, the Act will require employers to establish written grievance handling procedures, inform employees of these processes, conduct inquiries into complaints, communicate outcomes to employees, maintain written records, and ensure confidentiality unless disclosure is necessary. The Act will also prohibit retaliation against employees who raise grievances. Employers who fail to comply with these requirements may face administrative or civil penalties.

• Regulatory expectations are increasing: Grievance handling is subject to growing regulatory and judicial scrutiny, with new statutory obligations emerging, such as Singapore’s forthcoming Workplace Fairness Act.
• Procedural fairness, documentation, and timeliness are essential: Even in jurisdictions with limited statutory rules, such as South Korea and Singapore, best practice guidance emphasises the importance of fair procedures and proper record-keeping.
• Jurisdiction-specific regimes require careful attention: India’s highly segmented statutory framework means employers must coordinate multiple grievance mechanisms for different categories of employees and types of complaints.
• Forthcoming reforms will increase formal obligations: In Singapore, the introduction of the Workplace Fairness Act will require employers to implement written grievance procedures, maintain records, and prohibit retaliation.