Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

EMPLOYMENT LAW – MINIMUM WAGE – SERVICE CHARGE

Q: I am an employee in a hotel. In this industry, it is a standard practice for hotel employees to collect a 10% service charge from customers. The service charge is collected by hotel industry on behalf of us. However, recently the hotel industry implements a top up structure where they could utilize the service charge to top up any amount below the minimum wage.
Do they have the right to do so?
No, the hotel industry is not entitled to utilize part or all of the employees’ service charge to top up the minimum wage.

What legislation governs minimum wage in Malaysia?
The legislation governing minimum wage in Malaysia is the National Wages Council Consultative Act 2011 (“NWCCA 2011”) and Minimum Wages Order(s) 2012 to 2020 (“MWO”).

What is the objective of minimum wage policy?

  • The object of NWCCA 2011 and MWO are to serve as a social legislation with a view to protect workers against unfair wages and ensure they are not exploited.

Definition of minimum wages

  • Under NWCCA 2011, ‘minimum wages’ are defined as ‘basic wages’ determined by the government under the MWO.

Definition of basic wages

  • Under Employment Act 1955, ‘wages’ are defined as ‘basic wages’ and ‘other cash payments payable to an employee for work done in respect of his contract of service’.

Whether service charge can be utilized to top up the minimum wage?

  • Service charge falls within the definition of ‘other cash payments’, thus service charge cannot be a part of the basic wages.
  • ‘Service charge’ is additional tips which does not belong to the hotel industry but the eligible employees. The hotel industry merely collects and holds the monies as a fiduciary or trustee until distribution to the eligible employees. In other words, the ownership of the service charge vests in the eligible employees.
  • As such, the hotel industry cannot utilise money it does not own. The hotel industry is not entitled in law to appropriate and utilise the service charge to meet its statutory obligation.

The hotel industry explains that it is because COVID-19 pandemic affects the hotel industry severely.
The Covid-19 pandemic which affects the hotel industry as a whole cannot be a reason for the Courts to depart from the accepted principles of law in respect of the construction that ‘service charge’ is not a part of ‘basic wages’ under the minimum wage legislation.

Case in point: Crystal Crown Hotel & Resort Sdn Bhd (Crystal Crown Hotel Petaling Jaya) v Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-Pekerja Hotel, Bar & Restoran Semenanjung Malaysia [2021] 3 MLJ 466. Federal Court (Putrajaya) – Civil Appeal no: 02(f)-4-01 of 2018

Recent Post

STRATA MANAGEMENT – MANAGEMENT FEE SHOWDOWN – RESIDENTIAL VS. COMMERCIAL – WHO’S PAYING FOR THE EXTRAS?

In a landmark decision in Aikbee Timbers Sdn Bhd & Anor v Yii Sing Chiu & Anor and another appeal [2024] 1 MLJ 94 , the Court of Appeal clarified the rules on maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions in mixed strata developments. Developers and management corporations can impose different rates based on the distinct purposes of residential and commercial parcels. The judgment emphasizes fairness, ensuring residential owners bear the costs of exclusive facilities like pools and gyms, while commercial owners aren’t subsidizing amenities they don’t use. This ruling highlights the importance of transparency in budgeting and equitable cost-sharing in mixed-use properties.

Read More »

ILLEGALITY OF UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS’ CLAIM – FINDER’S FEES AND ILLEGALITY: COURT DRAWS THE LINE ON UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS

In a pivotal ruling, the Court of Appeal clarified that finder’s fee agreements are not automatically void under the Valuers, Appraisers, Estate Agents and Property Managers Act 1981. The Court emphasized that illegality must be specifically pleaded and supported by evidence, and isolated transactions do not trigger the Act’s prohibition. This decision highlights the importance of precise pleadings and a clear understanding of the law’s scope.

Read More »

COMPANIES ACT – OPPRESSION – DRAWING THE LINE: FEDERAL COURT DEFINES OPPRESSION VS. CORPORATE HARMS

In a decisive ruling, the Federal Court clarified the boundaries between personal shareholder oppression and corporate harm, overturning the Court of Appeal’s findings. The Court held that claims tied to the wrongful transfer of trademarks belonged to the company, not the individual shareholder, reaffirming that corporate harm must be addressed through a derivative action rather than an oppression claim.

Read More »

COMPANIES LAW – WHEN DIRECTORS BETRAY: COURT CONDEMNS BREACH OF TRUST AND CORPORATE MISCONDUCT

In a stark reminder of the consequences of corporate betrayal, the court found that the directors had systematically dismantled their own company to benefit a competing entity they controlled. By breaching their fiduciary duties, conspiring to harm the business, and unjustly enriching themselves, the defendants were held accountable through significant compensatory and exemplary damages, reaffirming the critical importance of trust and integrity in corporate governance.

Read More »

JURISDICTION – CHOOSING THE RIGHT COURT: THE SEA JUSTICE CASE HIGHLIGHTS WHERE MARITIME DISPUTES SHOULD BE HEARD

In The Sea Justice cases [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 383 and [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 429, the Singapore courts tackled a key question: which country should handle a maritime dispute when incidents span international waters? After examining the location of the collision, existing limitation funds in China, and witness availability, the courts concluded that China was the more appropriate forum. This ruling highlights that courts will often defer to the jurisdiction with the closest ties to the incident, ensuring efficient and fair handling of cross-border maritime disputes. This approach is also relevant in Malaysia, where similar principles apply.

Read More »
en_USEN
× Contact Us