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

REGULATIONS – GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE (GATT 1947 ) – ARTICLE I

This legal update explores key provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT 1947), focusing on Article I (Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment), Article II (Schedules of Concessions), Article XX (General Exceptions), and Article XXI (Security Exceptions). Article I mandates that any trade advantage granted by one contracting party to another must be extended unconditionally to all other parties. Article II ensures that imported goods from contracting parties receive treatment no less favourable than that outlined in agreed schedules, while also regulating permissible taxes and charges. Articles XX and XXI provide exceptions for measures necessary to protect public morals, health, security interests, and compliance with domestic laws. The provisions reflect the foundational principles of non-discrimination, transparency, and fair trade, while allowing for limited, well-defined exceptions. This summary is intended to provide a concise reference for businesses and legal practitioners involved in international trade law.

Read More »

ROAD ACCIDENT – INSURANCE COMPANY STRIKES BACK: HIGH COURT OVERTURNS ROAD ACCIDENT CLAIM

When a motorcyclist claimed he was knocked down in an accident, the Sessions Court ruled in his favor, holding the other rider fully liable. But the insurance company wasn’t convinced. They appealed, arguing that there was no proof of a collision and even raised suspicions of fraud. The High Court took a closer look – and in a dramatic turn, overturned the decision, dismissed the claim, and awarded RM60,000 in costs to the insurer. This case is a stark reminder that in court, assumptions don’t win cases – evidence does.

Read More »

CHARTERPARTY – LIEN ON SUB-FREIGHTS: CLARIFYING OWNERS’ RIGHTS AGAINST SUB-CHARTERERS

In Marchand Navigation Co v Olam Global Agri Pte Ltd and Anor [2025] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 92, the Singapore High Court upheld the owners’ right to enforce a lien on sub-freights under Clause 18 of the NYPE 1946 charterparty, ruling that the phrase ‘any amounts due under this charter’ was broad enough to cover unpaid bunker costs. Despite an arbitration clause between the owners and charterers, the sub-charterer was obligated to honor the lien, as it was not a party to the arbitration agreement. This decision reinforces that a properly exercised lien on sub-freights can be an effective tool for owners to recover unpaid sums, even in the presence of disputes between charterers and sub-charterers.

Read More »

SHIP SALE – LOSING THE DEAL, LOSING THE DAMAGES? THE LILA LISBON CASE AND THE LIMITS OF MARKET LOSS RECOVERY

In “The Lila Lisbon” [2025] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 101, the court ruled that a buyer cancelling under Clause 14 of the Norwegian Salesform Memorandum of Agreement is not automatically entitled to loss of bargain damages unless the seller is in repudiatory breach. The case clarifies that failing to deliver by the cancellation date does not constitute non-delivery under the English Sale of Goods Act 1979, as the clause grants the buyer a discretionary right rather than imposing a firm obligation on the seller. This decision highlights the importance of precise contract drafting, particularly in ship sale agreements, where buyers must ensure that compensation for market loss is explicitly provided for.

Read More »

CRIMINAL – KIDNAPPING – NO ESCAPE FROM JUSTICE: COURT UPHOLDS LIFE SENTENCE IN HIGH-PROFILE KIDNAPPING CASE

A 10-year-old child was abducted outside a tuition center, held captive, and released only after a RM1.75 million ransom was paid. The appellants were arrested following investigations, with their statements leading to the recovery of a portion of the ransom money. Despite denying involvement, they were convicted under the Kidnapping Act 1961 and sentenced to life imprisonment and ten strokes of the whip. Their appeal challenged the identification process, the validity of the charge, and the admissibility of evidence, but the court found the prosecution’s case to be strong, ruling that the appellants had acted in furtherance of a common intention and were equally liable for the crime.

Read More »
en_USEN
× Contact Us