3 More Bus Drivers Sue SBS Transit Over Unfair Working Hours

It’s no secret that Singaporeans are overworked.

Many companies couldn’t care less about the welfare of their employees as long as they’re profiting from it.

Not Goody Feed though. Writers here are lucky that we’re only expected to work 364 days a year. We get a whole day off! That’s because our boss cares about our well-being.

The same can’t be said for other companies, though.

3 More Bus Drivers Sue SBS Transit Over Unfair Working Hours

Three more SBS Transit (SBST) bus drivers have filed lawsuits against their employer for underpaying them and not giving them enough rest.

This comes after five other drivers made the same allegation against the company in September.

The three drivers allege that they were made to work more than 44 hours a week, in breach of the Employment Act, working four extra hours of “built-in overtime” a week.

Have you heard anything scarier than “built-in overtime”?

All represented by same lawyer

All eight bus drivers are represented by Mr M Ravi from Carson Law Chambers. The five who filed lawsuits in September – three Singaporeans and two Malaysians – just want their employer to resolve their “reasonable claims” through mediation, Mr M Ravi told TODAYonline.

However, if mediation fails, the cases will proceed to trial, Mr Ravi said.

One of the five drivers, Mr Chua Qwong Meng, claimed he was expected to work for seven days in a row before getting a day off, which was not what he and SBS Transit had agreed upon.

Records of his working hours apparently also did not match the monthly pay slips he received, he said.

Fresh claims

The three drivers who have filed fresh claims – all Malaysian – allege that they were expected to work 12 days straight — from a Tuesday to two Saturdays later — before they were given two days of rest, on a Monday and Sunday.

12 consecutive days? I can’t even work two days in a row without passing out at my desk. 

Otherwise, they were given an arrangement to work seven straight days before getting a rest day, Mr Ravi said.

Mr Ravi claimed that this was contrary to what they agreed in their letter of appointment.

He added that such an arrangement is also a “flagrant breach” of Section 36(1) of the Employment Act, which states that every employee shall be allowed a rest day each week.

Underpaid

In addition, Mr Ravi said that SBST is also in breach of the Ministry of Manpower’s regulated pay rate for work done during employee’s rest days at their employer’s request.

He supported his claim with Section 37(3) of the Employment Act, which states that payment for work done on a rest day should be:

• One day’s salary if work is done for up to half the normal working hours
• Two days’ salary if work is done for more than half the working hours
• Two days’ salary and overtime pay if work is done beyond the normal daily working hours

With regard to overtime pay, Mr Ravi said that his clients should have been paid 1.5 times their hourly rate of pay, based on Section 38(4) of the Employment Act.

All 8 drivers are seeking damages to be assessed for wages, statutory interest of 5.33 per cent every year and costs.

The three bus drivers are still with the company, but had resigned from the National Transport Workers’ Union before filing their respective writs of summons to SBST.

SBST responds

Last month, the Industrial Arbitration Court (IAC) president, Justice Chan Seng Onn, found that while the first five drivers were contracted to work 48 hours for a six-day working week, they were still in compliance with the Act.

How?

He claimed that when the 45 minutes of daily break times were deducted, the drivers were actually working 43.5 hours a week, in compliance with the Act’s 44 hours a week rule.

He added that the Act’s definition of “working hours” excluded break times.

It’s unclear if these claims are true, but if these bus drivers were treated unfairly, overworked, or underpaid, then SBST should certainly be reprimanded.