Three more bus drivers sue SBS Transit over wage dispute

SINGAPORE — Three more SBS Transit (SBST) bus drivers have stepped forward to file lawsuits against their employer, joining five others who in September accused the transport operator of underpaying them and not giving them enough rest.

The three drivers who have filed fresh claims against SBST also allege that the firm compelled them to work four extra hours of “built-in overtime” a week so that they ended up working more than 44 hours a week, in breach of the Employment Act.

All three are Malaysians — Mr Huzainal Hussein, Mr Gan Kim Kiam and Mr Thiyagu Balan.

The lawsuits, filed last Tuesday (Dec 24), came while the mediation for the first five bus drivers — three Singaporeans and two Malaysians — were set to be heard on Jan 8. 

SBST is represented by Mr Davinder Singh of Davinder Singh Chambers. TODAY understands that he has made a request for the date of the mediation, which was set by the State Courts, to be rescheduled to Feb 27.

All eight bus drivers are represented by Mr M Ravi from Carson Law Chambers, and he told TODAY on Monday (Dec 30) that his first five clients just want their employer to resolve their “reasonable claims” through mediation. 

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

Court documents seen by TODAY stated that one of the drivers in the earlier suit, Mr Chua Qwong Meng, claimed that 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 based on his letter of appointment. 

Records of his working hours apparently also did not match the monthly pay slips he received, he said, adding that he clocked more than 44 hours in a week, yet was not paid the regulated overtime pay.

LATEST CLAIMS

In the latest claims against SBST, Mr Huzainal, Mr Gan and Mr Balan 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.

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

“This is contrary to the objective intentions of both plaintiff and defendant as assessed through their letter of appointment,” Mr Ravi said in all three Statements of Claim tendered.

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 in each week, he added.

Noting that SBST’s position is that the work arrangement does create one rest day each week for the drivers, Mr Ravi argued that it is a “transparent attempt to defeat the purpose” underlying the law, which is to prevent the exploitation of workers.

Citing Section 41 of the Employment Act, which defines a week as a continuous period of seven days beginning on midnight on Sunday, he said: “It appears to be Parliament’s overarching purpose that the week should commence at midnight of the rest day, to prevent workers from having to work for continuous periods longer than seven days without rest.”

Notwithstanding these, 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, Mr Ravi said.

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 as follows: 

• 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

As for 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.

Just like the five bus drivers in the earlier suit, the three drivers are seeking damages to be assessed for wages, statutory interest of 5.33 per cent every year and costs.

Mr Ravi said that 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.

SBS TRANSIT RESPONDS

SBST’s spokesperson noted that the new lawsuits were filed even while the Industrial Arbitration Court (IAC) had ruled that the bus drivers’ terms are equal to or more favourable than those they are entitled to under the Employment Act. 

Last month, IAC' president, Justice Chan Seng Onn, found that while the five bus drivers who had filed the original lawsuits were contracted to work 48 hours for a six-day working week, which included four hours of “built-in” overtime, SBST is in compliance with the Act when 45 minutes of daily break times are deducted. 

So workers are not working more than eight hours a day or 44 hours a week, but 43.5 hours a week, in compliance with the Act, he said, adding that the Act’s definition of “working hours” excluded break times.

Ms Tammy Tan, senior vice-president of corporate communications at SBST, said: “SBS Transit is very proud of the fact that it has not just complied with the law, but has gone beyond that in the interests of its bus captains. We will naturally defend these claims with vigour.”