Former SBS Driver Who Sued SBS Had All His Claims Dismissed by the High Court

By
Lin Jiawen
-
Advertisements
 

After trying to sue SBS Transit (SBST) for unreasonable working conditions such as working more than 72 hours of overtime (OT) in a month, the High Court dismissed all of Mr Chua Qwong Meng’s claims against his former employer yesterday (16 August).

Mr Chua, who worked as a bus driver at SBST for almost three years between April 2017 and February 2020, first filed a lawsuit against the company earlier this year on 22 March.

His case was also heard in court as a “test case” for similar lawsuits that involved 12 other bus drivers, which were filed separately at the State Courts.

Mr Chua, whose case was also initially handled by the State Courts, was allowed to bring his case to the High Court after Justice Audrey Lim agreed to Mr Chua’s request to do so.

This was due to how the matters in Mr Chua’s lawsuit were applicable to and would impact a large group of workers. 

What Mr Chua Had Claimed in the Lawsuit

Firstly, in his lawsuit, Mr Chua, 62, claimed that SBST had first breached the Employment Act, as seen through the number of hours of OT that he was made to do every month.

In particular, he said that he was made to work more than 72 hours of OT for multiple months.

And for those who don’t carry copies of the Employment Act everywhere with us (AKA basically everyone), the Employment Act basically ensures that employees are treated fairly.

Based on Part IV of the Employment Act, employees are not allowed to work more than 72 hours’ worth of OT every month, meaning that SBST had broken the law based on Mr Chua’s claims.

He added that he was made to work for seven days in a row before being granted a rest day, and that he was not given the same rest day every week when he was supposed to have a rest day every Sunday.

In addition to that, Mr Chua was apparently told to work on his rest day “all the time”, and was given disciplinary notices if he refused to do so.

Last but not least, Mr Chua also stated in his lawsuit that he had been underpaid by his employer as SBST had used a “wrong method of calculation” to account for his salary.

Judge Rejected Claims by Mr Chua

In a 59-page written judgement issued yesterday (26 August), Justice Lim announced that she rejected all the claims that Mr Chua had previously made against SBST.

Here’s why.

Company Has System to Alert Staff if More than 72 Hours of OT is Scheduled

With regards to Mr Chua insisting that SBST had breached the Employment Act by scheduling more than the legal number of hours allowed for OT, Justice Lim referenced SBST’s bus crew attendance lists.

The lists proved that Mr Chua had not worked more than 72 hours of OT every month between January 2018 and April 2019.

Advertisements
 

She added that the head of SBST’s scheduling department also clarified that SBST has a system in place that disallows bus drivers to be assigned more than 72 hours of OT every month.

According to the department head, a notification from the system will be sent to the staff if bus drivers’ schedules are changed to include more than 72 hours of OT.

Rest Day Not Required to Be on Sunday

As for Mr Chua saying that his rest day should be on a Sunday every week, Justice Lim also pointed out that this was, in fact, untrue according to the Employment Act.

Instead, his rest day should be scheduled after every six days of working, meaning he would rest on the seventh day before the cycle would repeat itself.

She also added that the Act allows employers to schedule employees’ rest days on days other than Sunday since the Act says that employees are permitted to have one rest day every week on Sunday, “or such other day as the employer may determine from time to time”.

Advertisements
 

The Act also does not require employers to schedule employees’ rest days on the same day every week.

Mr Chua then challenged this notion by expressing his view that “from time to time” means that employers are only allowed to schedule rest days non-Sundays “occasionally, but not regularly”.

Justice Lim rejected this interpretation.

Disciplinary Action Only Carried Out When He Didn’t Turn Up to Work

In addition to that, Justice Lim also noted that the disciplinary actions that he received from SBST were not from when he refused to work on his rest days.

Instead, they were from when he did not turn up for work on days when he was scheduled to.

Paid Fairly For OT, Driver’s Calculations Included Break Times

Apart from that, Justice Lim also confirmed that Mr Chua had indeed been paid fairly for his OT and work in general after looking through the relevant documents, which included the bus crew attendance lists, payslips and time cards.

Advertisements
 

Join our Telegram channel for more entertaining and informative articles at https://t.me/goodyfeedsg or download the Goody Feed app here: https://goodyfeed.com/app/

She also pointed out that Mr Chua was compensated for his work on his rest days or public holidays with twice his basic pay, which is more than the minimum rate of 1.5 times that is required by the Employment Act.

As for his claims that he had worked more OT hours than SBST had recorded based on his own calculations, Justice Lim dismissed the claim since Mr Chua’s calculations included his break times as well.

Mr Chua is represented by lawyer Lim Tean, who is now facing criminal charges. You can watch this video to know more:

Read Also:

Read Also:

Advertisements
 
Lin Jiawen
Email: [email protected]