Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

EMPLOYMENT LAW – OVERTIME PAY – ASSESSING MANUAL VS. MENTAL LABOR – LEGAL INSIGHTS ON OVERTIME ENTITLEMENTS

ILLUSTRATIVE SCENARIO

X is a supervisor storekeeper and Y is a maintenance technician, both employed by Z. X’s responsibilities include approving leave applications and supervising subordinates, while Y’s duties involve handling machinery and resolving technical issues using his skills.

X and Y filed a complaint with the Director-General of Labour under section 69 of the Employment Act 1955 (“the EA 1955”) alleging that Z failed to pay them overtime at the prescribed rate. The Director-General dismissed their claims, stating that neither X nor Y were engaged in “manual labour” as defined by their employment terms. Dissatisfied, X and Y appealed the decision.

The key issue is whether X and Y’s work primarily involved physical labor with minimal mental effort or whether their tasks required significant application of skill, knowledge, and experience, with only incidental manual effort.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES & LAW

  • Section 2 of the EA 1955: Defines an ‘employee’ to include ‘any person or class of persons included in any category in the First Schedule’. According to subsection 2(1) of the First Schedule, an ‘employee’ is someone engaged in manual labour.
  • Legal Precedents: It is challenging to separate manual labor from mental labor, as most jobs involve both physical and mental effort.
  • Primary Test: The test to determine if a person is ‘engaged in manual labour’ is based on the dominant or primary effort involved in the work, as opposed to incidental or ancillary effort.
  • Dominant Effort: ‘Dominant’ means that more than half of the total work time involves the primary effort (as specified in subsection 2(1) of the First Schedule in EA 1955).

APPLICATION TO SCENARIO

  • Given that X and Y’s roles involve significant mental effort, the appeals against the Director-General of Labour’s decision are likely to be dismissed. Both individuals use their intellect and knowledge more extensively than the physical movements required to execute their tasks.

REFERENCE CASES

  • Md Zaini bin Abdullah & Ors v. Panasonic Automotive Systems [2022] 10 MLJ 23
  • Colgate Palmotive Sdn Bhd v. Cheong Foo Wenf [2001] MLJU 719; [2001] LNS 394
  • Chareon Pakphand Jaya Farm (M) Sdn Bhd v. Chung Lin [2006] 1 CLJ 784
Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN’S CUSTODY – CUSTODY DISPUTES IN MALAYSIA: ESSENTIAL INSIGHTS ON CHILD WELFARE AND PARENTAL ROLES

In a recent custody dispute, the court emphasized the importance of child welfare, reaffirming the maternal custody presumption for young children unless strong evidence suggests otherwise. In high-conflict situations, the court favored sole custody over joint arrangements to minimize stress on the children. This case underscores that Malaysian parents should provide credible evidence for their claims and focus on practical, child-centered solutions.

Read More »
31 October ,2024 No Comments

BREACH OF CONTRACT – DAMAGES – FORESEEABILITY AND FAIRNESS IN FREIGHT LIABILITY CLAIMS

In JSD Corporation v Tri-Line Express [2024] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 285, the court set a clear precedent on damages for property claims, ruling that only foreseeable and proportionate losses are recoverable. Applying principles akin to Hadley v Baxendale, the court allowed for repair costs if intent to remedy was evident but rejected double recovery, underscoring that damages must reflect actual loss without overcompensation. This decision serves as a guide for Malaysian courts, emphasizing fair and balanced recovery in line with foreseeable damages.

Read More »
31 October ,2024 No Comments

ADMIRALTY IN REM – SHIPPING — FUEL OR FREIGHT? COURT CLEARS THE AIR ON GLOBAL FALCON BUNKER DISPUTE

In a decisive ruling on the Global Falcon bunker dispute, the court dismissed Meck Petroleum’s admiralty claim for unpaid high-sulphur fuel, finding that the fuel was supplied not for operational purposes but as cargo. With the vessel lacking necessary equipment to use high-sulphur fuel and evidence pointing to its transfer to another vessel, the court determined that Meck’s claim fell outside admiralty jurisdiction, leading to the release of the vessel and potential damages for wrongful arrest.

Read More »
31 October ,2024 No Comments

COLLISION COURSE – COURT WEIGHS ANCHOR DRAGGING AND LIABILITY AT SEA

In a collision that underscores the high stakes of maritime vigilance, the court ruled that Belpareil bore the brunt of the blame for failing to control its dragging anchor and delaying critical warnings. Yet, Kiran Australia wasn’t off the hook entirely—apportioned 30% fault for its limited evasive action, the case serves as a stark reminder: in maritime law, all vessels share responsibility in averting disaster, even when one party’s errors loom large.

Read More »
31 October ,2024 No Comments

GENERAL AVERAGE – PIRATE RANSOM DISPUTE: SUPREME COURT RULES CARGO OWNERS LIABLE IN THE POLAR CASE

In the landmark case Herculito Maritime Ltd v Gunvor International BV (The Polar) [2024] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 85, the English Supreme Court upheld the shipowner’s right to recover a USD 7.7 million ransom paid to Somali pirates under general average. The Court ruled that cargo interests, despite their arguments regarding charterparty terms and insurance obligations, were liable to contribute to the ransom payment. This decision reinforces the importance of clear contractual provisions when seeking to limit or exclude liability in maritime contracts particularly matter relating to general average.

Read More »
31 October ,2024 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN
× Contact Us