\n<\/p>\n
SINGAPORE \u2014 A migrant worker has won a two-year legal battle after the High Court overturned a lower tribunal’s ruling and ordered his former employer to pay more than $5,700 in overtime.<\/p>\n
In a decision on April 7, High Court Justice Philip Jeyaretnam allowed an appeal by Indian national Gena Hulash Ram against Lim Joo Huat Enterprise, finding the company’s treatment of overtime pay unlawful.<\/p>\n
The case turned on whether a fixed monthly allowance could be used to offset overtime pay.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The court ruled that it could not, finding the approach incompatible with Singapore’s employment laws.<\/p>\n
Mr Gena worked as a packer for the fresh produce wholesaler from December 2022 to August 2023.<\/p>\n
Before he was hired, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) issued an in-principle approval letter stating his basic salary as $1,000 a month, with two allowances: $200 for housing and $300 for “others”.\u00a0<\/p>\n
His total fixed monthly pay was $1,500. The letter also set his overtime salary rate at $7.87 per hour.<\/p>\n
The unspecified “others” allowance became the crux of the dispute.<\/p>\n
[[nid:733254]]<\/p>\n
In December 2023, Mr Gena filed a claim with the Employment Claims Tribunal for $5,711.11 in unpaid overtime.<\/p>\n
His employer argued that overtime had already been covered by the fixed $300 monthly allowance, regardless of hours worked.\u00a0<\/p>\n
This meant he would receive $300 whether he worked 20 hours of overtime or 40.<\/p>\n
The tribunal accepted that Mr Gena had worked overtime and was entitled to compensation for the number of hours of extra work he had done.\u00a0<\/p>\n
However, the magistrate allowed the employer to offset the payments against the $300 allowance.<\/p>\n
In other words, the magistrate held that in months where Mr Gena’s overtime work calculated on an hourly basis was less than $300, he was entitled to the fixed sum of $300.\u00a0<\/p>\n
But in the months where the overtime pay was more than $300, he was entitled to the excess of overtime worked over the fixed allowance.<\/p>\n
The magistrate reasoned that since the employer labelled the $300 allowance as “overtime” in Mr Gena’s payslips, there was a contractual agreement between both that the allowance was for overtime work.<\/p>\n
As a result, his claim was reduced from $5,711.11 to $3,254.84.<\/p>\n
Dissatisfied, Mr Gena appealed.<\/p>\n
“The appeal raised a simple but important point of law,” said Justice Jeyaretnam \u2014 whether overtime pay could be offset against a fixed monthly allowance under the Employment Act and related regulations.<\/p>\n
[[nid:733247]]<\/p>\n
At the appeal, the employer maintained that it was lawful for the “others” allowance to be a fixed payment for overtime work done, regardless of the number of hours actually worked.<\/p>\n
Justice Jeyaretnam disagreed.<\/p>\n
“An employer cannot introduce a cap on or fixed sum for overtime payment,” he said, affirming the tribunal magistrate’s decision that workers must be paid based on actual overtime hours worked.<\/p>\n
He noted that the employment terms in the MOM letter – basic monthly salary, fixed monthly allowances and fixed monthly salary \u2014 are defined under MOM regulations.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Under those definitions, “fixed monthly allowances must not include any form of overtime payment”, Justice Jeyaretnam added.<\/p>\n
“This meant that the ‘others’ allowance could not cover or subsume overtime payments that would be due to the employee for overtime hours worked.”<\/p>\n
He also rejected the argument that the arrangement was administratively convenient.<\/p>\n
“Regardless of what the employer might have considered to be administratively convenient, it was not open to the employer to include the employee’s overtime pay, whether in whole or in part, in the ‘others’ allowance,” he said, warning that allowing a fixed monthly allowance to offset overtime pay would effectively reduce the declared overtime rate.<\/p>\n
The High Court reinstated the full claim of $5,711.11, calculated based on hours worked, and awarded $9,000 in costs against the employer.<\/p>\n
Mr Gena was represented pro bono by lawyers Melvin Chan Kah Keen and Amelia Tan Han Ru from TSMP Law Corporation.<\/p>\n
Justice Jeyaretnam commended their efforts: “Acting pro bono for clients who would otherwise be unable to afford legal representation exemplifies the best traditions of the Bar.”<\/p>\n
[[nid:733237]]<\/p>\n
Mr Chan told The Straits Times on April 8 that Mr Gena has left Singapore.\u00a0<\/p>\n
He added that his firm works with migrant worker non-government organisations Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics and Transient Workers Count Too to support migrant workers, and he came to know of Mr Gena’s case through the latter.\u00a0<\/p>\n
He noted that while the sum may seem small to Singaporeans, it was significant to Mr Gena.<\/p>\n
“Unfortunately, some employers may actually leverage this, thinking that the worker may not bother to claim, or more likely, may not be able to engage a lawyer who finds it worthwhile to pursue the claim,” Mr Chan added.<\/p>\n
On taking the case pro bono, he said: “Simply put, if lawyers don’t help, then who will?”<\/p>\n
[[nid:733258]]<\/p>\n
This <\/em>article<\/em><\/a> was first published in <\/em>The Straits Times<\/em><\/a>. Permission required for reproduction.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n