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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
X and Y filed a complaint with the Director-General of Labour under section 69 of the Employment Act 1955 (\u201cthe EA 1955\u201d) 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This update examines a case where two employees appealed a decision denying them overtime pay, focusing on whether their roles primarily involved manual or mental labor under the Employment Act 1955.<\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":5122,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1573,1572],"tags":[3489],"class_list":["post-5121","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-employment","category-labor-law","tag-employment-law"],"yoast_head":"\n