Landmark ruling underscores worker's protection under challenged law
The High Court of Singapore recently dealt with the case of a worker who claimed overtime pay beyond the threshold prescribed by law, which the employer contested.
The worker, Hossain Rakib, a Bangladeshi national, filed a claim against his former employer, Ideal Design & Build Pte Ltd, over unpaid overtime wages.
Rakib, who worked as a construction worker for the company from December 14, 2020, to January 6, 2022, asserted that he was entitled to compensation for over 700 hours of overtime work spanning from February 2021 to November 2021.
Despite Rakib's efforts, he claimed that Ideal Design & Build Pte Ltd failed to remunerate him for the extra hours worked.
Worker’s dispute
The dispute arose from the employer's contention that Rakib had surpassed the statutory limit of 72 overtime hours per month on certain occasions.
Consequently, the employer argued that Rakib had no legal standing to demand payment for overtime hours exceeding the prescribed threshold.
After the worker's initial setback at the Employment Claims Tribunal, Rakib pursued his case by lodging an appeal with the General Division of the High Court.
The focal point of his appeal centered on the interpretation of Section 38(5) of the Employment Act 1968, specifically addressing whether he could claim overtime pay beyond the 72-hour monthly limit imposed by the statute.
Employment Act’s legislative intent
The High Court determined that the Employment Act does not preclude an employee from seeking compensation for overtime hours surpassing the stipulated limit.
The court highlighted the legislative intent behind the Section, and Part 4 of the Employment Act, emphasizing their role in safeguarding employees' rights to fair remuneration, particularly for work mandated by the employer.
The judgment highlighted that Section 38(5) of the Employment Act 1968 was not designed to curtail an employee's right to seek compensation for overtime work exceeding the statutory limit.
Payment beyond overtime cap
“Rakib was required by the respondent to work hours beyond the Overtime Cap. Even though the respondent knew from [his] Employment Contract that Rakib was not to work beyond the Overtime Cap, the [employer] still required [him] to do so. Rakib worked those hours,” the Hight Court said.
“He asked for his pay for overtime, albeit beyond the Overtime Cap. The [employer] hid behind the Overtime Cap. It refused to pay Rakib.”
“Rakib was compelled to sue the [employer],” it added.
“Upon an examination of the relevant legislative purpose, it’s difficult to see how [the relevant Section], which is ostensibly enacted to protect vulnerable employees like Rakib from the effects of onerous overtime hours, can be used to shield the [employer] from having to pay what is rightfully due to [him].”
“Rakib should be rightfully paid for the overtime hours he was required to work,” the High Court concluded.
