In dismissing all of the plaintiff’s claims, Justice Lim relied upon work calendar reports generated by SBS’ rostering and booking system to reach her findings.
Mr Chua questioned the authenticity of the reports at test, but the judge accepted SBS’ evidence as proof that the reviews were authentic.
The judge noted testimony from SBS CEO Cheng Siak Kian that the rostering system was “a gold standard with regard to bus operators worldwide”.
The system released notifications if there is an attempt to roster a bus chief without a rest time in a week, based on the testimony.
RELAXATION DAYS
The particular Employment Act says that “every worker must be allowed in each week a rest time without pay of just one whole day”.
Mr Chua claimed that this meant he was entitled to a rest day on the seventh day of each 7 days after working for 6 days.
He argued that otherwise, the provision might be abused by rostering workers’ rest times to fall on the first day plus last day of the two-week period. This particular meant working for 12 consecutive days between.
Justice Lim disagreed, finding that a company is allowed to timetable a rest day on any day of the week, defined as “a continuous period of seven days”.
She found there was no evidence that SBS had rostered Mr Chua to work more than twelve days in between two rest days.
Mr Chua furthermore claimed that he was compelled to work in the rest days “all the time” plus given disciplinary updates if he declined.
The judge dismissed these because bare assertions unsupported by independent evidence.
OVERTIME AND BREAK TIMES
The Employment React states that an employee who is required to work more than eight hours a day or more compared to 44 hours per week must be paid overtime.
Mr Chua’s contractual hours being an SBS bus chief amounted to forty eight hours a week. He argued this meant that he was appreciated to work overtime in order to earn his simple pay.
Yet SBS, represented by a team of attorneys from Davinder Singh Chambers, countered how the contractual 48 hours were gross hrs that included break times of at least 45 minutes a day.
Excluding break times, this meant that Mr Chua would have qualified for his basic pay right after working 43-and-a-half or even fewer hours per week, they argued.
Justice Lim therefore found that the set up did not breach the Employment Act.
She also found how the rate of buy the overtime hours that Mr Chua did work followed that in a collective agreement between SBS and the National Transport Workers’ Union, plus was higher than the minimum rate within the Employment Act.
Mr Chua also claimed that SBS gave him fewer than 45 minutes of split time in his 1st eight hours associated with work, which is required under the Employment Function.
He mentioned he was given crack periods of 25 minutes and a bathroom break period of regarding 10 minutes, which was “mere idealism” as the timings did not factor in traffic or parking delays.
Justice Lim considered whether the 45 minutes of break time must be given continuously, and whether Mister Chua had “an opportunity to have a meal” as specified in the Employment Act.
She found that employers can give several break times that add up to no less than forty-five minutes, and that SBS allocated Mr Chua enough time to have meals.
The assess said she would listen to the parties upon costs at the following hearing.