Migrant worker wins S$5,700 overtime pay after 2-year legal battle with S'pore vegetable wholesaler

A migrant worker won over S$5,700 in a two-year legal battle over unpaid overtime pay after the High Court overturned a lower court's decision.

Indian national Gena Hulash Ram won his appeal against Lim Joo Huat Enterprise, a vegetable wholesaler.

In a judgment seen by Mothership dated Apr. 7, High Court Justice Philip Jeyaretnam ordered that the amount payable to the former employee as overtime payment be increased from S$3,254.84 to S$5,711.11.

The case centred around employment regulations and whether overtime pay may be offset by a fixed monthly allowance, as originally ruled by the Magistrate.

Justice Jeyaretnam ruled that the offset was incompatible with Singapore's laws.

Worked as a produce packer

Gena was employed by Lim Joo Huat Enterprise as a produce packer from Dec. 17, 2022, to Aug. 25, 2023.

The judgment noted that, as is typical, Gena's employment terms were found in his In-Principle Approval (IPA) letter issued by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), which contains a migrant worker's key terms of employment.

There was no separate written contract.

The letter stated that his basic monthly salary was S$1,000, with two allowances: S$200 for housing, amenities, and services, and S$300 for "others".

This resulted in a fixed monthly salary of S$1,500.

The IPA also declared that S$7.87 per hour was his rate of overtime pay.

"Others" allowance

The "others" allowance was the main issue of the dispute.

The employer considered it a fixed compensation for overtime work regardless of the hours worked in a month.

For example, if an employee worked 20 hours of overtime, calculated as the overtime pay rate multiplied by 20, the employee would not receive S$157.40 but would receive the S$300.

Meanwhile, if the employee worked 40 hours of overtime, the employee would not receive S$314.80 but would again receive the S$300.

Offset

Gena filed a claim with the Employment Claims Tribunal for S$5,711.11 in unpaid overtime on Dec. 19, 2023.

His employer argued that the overtime pay was offset by the "others" allowance, stated the judgment.

The tribunal accepted that Gena had worked overtime and was entitled to compensation.

However, the magistrate allowed the employer to offset the payments against the S$300 allowance, reducing his claim to S$3,254.84.

This was calculated on an hourly basis.

In the months when Gena's overtime was less than S$300, he would be given the full fixed sum.

However, when the monthly overtime amount exceeded S$300, he would be entitled to the excess.

The magistrate considered that the employer labelled the S$300 as "overtime" in Gena's payslips and thus there was a contractual agreement.

The appeal

Gena appealed, and Justice Jeyaretnam rejected the employer's submission that the "others" allowance was a fixed payment for overtime work done.

Justice Jeyaretnam cited the IPA and its regulations.

"Fixed monthly allowances must not include any form of overtime payment. This meant that the 'others' allowance could not cover or subsume overtime payments that would be due to the employee for overtime hours worked."

He also rejected the employer's claim that the arrangement was administratively convenient.

The full claim based on hours of overtime work was reinstated.

S$9,000 was awarded in costs for Gena's legal team, Melvin Chan Kah Keen and Amelia Tan Han Ru from TSMP Law Corporation, who represented him pro bono.

Justice Jeyaretnam said: "Acting pro bono for clients who would otherwise be unable to afford legal representation exemplifies the best traditions of the Bar. In such cases, there would be nothing objectionable with ordering party-and-party costs."

Gena has left Singapore

On Apr. 8, Chan told The Straits Times that Gena had left Singapore and noted that while Singaporeans may find the sum small, it was significant to Gena.

Chan said: “Unfortunately, some employers may actually leverage this, thinking that the worker may not bother to claim, or more likely, may not be able to engage a lawyer who finds it worthwhile to pursue the claim.”

Chan said his firm worked with migrant worker non-governmental organisations and came to know of Gena's case through Transient Workers Count Too, representing him pro bono.

He said: “Simply put, if lawyers don’t help, then who will?”

Top photo from Lim Joo Huat's website