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

Sorotan Terkini

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.