Wages : Travelling Allowance : My point of view

Section 2, Employment Act 1955 interpreted wages as basic wages and other cash payable for work done. It went further by excluding payment in cash such as traveling allowances, bonuses amongst other from the interpretation of wages.

Travelling allowance, for the purpose of payment to an employee is a form of payment that is payable not for work done.

In order to better understands why, we can use the workmen compensation model to show us why travelling  allowance is not payable for work done.

 The principle of "Going and Coming Rule", laid down by the law since the employer derives no
benefit from an employee’s ordinary commute to and from work. We can also simplified this principle as  punch in and punch out (clock-in clock-out), which during this interval an employer is liable to the action by employee or injury to the employee in the course of employment is one of the measurements weather cash payable is wages or not.

The master, or we call them employer has the right to control the servants or employee within time limited by law. Clearly if the employer wish to pay travelling allowance for the purpose of paying for the journey from home to the place of employment, the payment shall not for work done but outside of the "control period" that an employer has against his employee.

Different from basic wages, payable as a consideration for the whole duration of contract of service.

The Malaysian legislature has done justice to the interpretation of wages simply by acknowledging the existence of these dichotomy, namely basic wages and cash payable for work done.

In my opinion, if an employer has decided to name the travelling allowance as travelling allowance or simply naming it under "travelling" will the exclusion takes effect, other name in the form of petrol allowance, car or car maintenance allowance will have no effect as to exclusion from the interpretation of other cash payable for work done.

The value of travelling concession, is when an employer put a price tag to transport provided by him to commute his employee to the place of employment and shall also be excluded from the interpretation since no cash changed hand. If there is any, the cash shall be payable to a specific purpose or person namely the transportation provider.

In conclusion it is safe to say travelling allowance is not wages under section 2 Employment Act 1955.

Interpreting provision under employment act 1955

Interpretation

2. (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires -

"employee" means any person or class of persons—

(a) included in any category in the First Schedule to the extent specified therein; or

(b) in respect of whom the Minister makes an order under subsection (3) or section 2A;

for the purpose of determining whether a part, section or any provision under the act is applicable or not. One must remember the initial interpretation given under section 2.

for example, right of audience under section 85A to represent an employee under civil proceeding. Question arise are we going to be applying interpretation under section 2 which limit it to schedule employee, or we shall include employee under section 69B, since section 69B clearly state the applicability of the part which the right of audience fell into.

If we read together, section 2 and section 69B, then the context requires the interpretation of "employee" shall include employee with wages more than two thousand ringgit but shall not exceed five thousand ringgit.

Another interpretation is, section 69B only furthers the Director General of Labour power to hear, inquire into and decide claim by an employee against an employer, and with specific purpose shall not include any other task including representing an employee under a civil proceeding. The applicability of such part is in order to dispose the claim to the extents of what section 69B were intended to cater, that is to hear, inquire into and decide that's it. Anything further than that shall be exceeding the intention of section 69B.

This has come to my belief that, "a provision under an act of Parliament which can be interpreted with more than one interpretation, even by a layman shall construed as a bad law and need to be amended"

Employer invoke section 13(2), termination benefit...

Question

If the employer invoke section 13(2) for breach under section 15(2), does regulation 4 applicable since an employee shall be entitled to termination benefits payment where his contract of service is terminated for any reason whatsoever, and clearly termination under section 13(2) still constitute a termination under regulation 4,

The Law

“… 4. (1) Subject to paragraphs (2), (3) and (4), an employee shall be entitled to termination benefits payment where his contract of service is terminated for any reason whatsoever otherwise than -

(a) ...

(b) ...

(c) voluntarily by the employee, other than under section 13 (2) or the reasons specified in section 14 (3) of the Act.

Answer

To answer this question, we must look into section 13(2) and the spirit behind it, that render a termination by the employee's will not deprive him of the termination benefit.

As a general rule, if an employee terminate his service he is not entitle to be paid termination benefit, only when he invoke section 13(2) and 14(3) an exclusion to the general rule apply and employee who terminate his contract of service shall be paid termination benefit.

Both section contain specific issue, section 13(2) namely is regarding an act of willful breach by party that has left the other party an option whether to continue the contract of service or end it on the ground of a voidable contract. of service

Section 14(3) is about the inability of employer to provide a save working environment, in the opinion of the employee shall have an effect to his safety and the safety of his dependent. This situations is also a form of voidable contract of service at the option of the employee.

In-line with the unequal bargaining power, an employee to some extent during the execution of the contract of service, will have some right in deciding whether he can end the relationship on the ground of a voidable contract of service, and shall not be burden to pay damages allowed in the industrial jurisprudence namely an indemnity in lieu of notice. Section 13(2) and 14(3) just provided a statutory defense on this matter.

In my opinion, regulation 4 (c) are exclusion to general rule of entitlement for the payment of termination benefit, and an act by the other party namely the employer to invoke the same section shall have an adverse effect, to put it into perspective, an act of termination by an employer for the reason of willful breach by the employee shall stripped him of the termination benefit. This is because the act of termination by the employer is trigger by a breach of the contract of service by the employee.

Mekanik penciptaan pekerja.

Salah satu kaedah penyelesaian pertikaian perhubungan perusahaan ialah dengan memahami bagaimana hubungan majikan pekerja boleh wujud. Bagaimana ia dicipta, di mana asalnya.
Masih lagi menggunakan teori fungsi majikan, dan mengambil model entiti perniagaan untuk memudahkan kefahaman. Peringkat awal suatu perniagaan, terutamanya milik tunggal seperti perniagaan nasi lemak. Setiap fungsi dilaksanakan sendiri.
Bermula dengan pembelian (purchase) bahan mentah, pembuatan (production), jualan dan pemasaran ( sale and marketing) kemudian kira-kira(book keeping) hinggalah kawalan kualiti (QC) dilaksanakan sendiri. Sehingga berlaku pertambahan dalam permintaan (surplus demand) maka bekalan/ penawaran (supply) perlu ditingkatkan. Pada peringkat inilah, ruang wujud, perniagaan perlu memutuskan mana-mana fungsi perlu diserahkan kepada pihak lain. Keputusan perlu dibuat di peringkat ini untuk mewujudkan kontrak perkhidmatan/ pekerjaan atau lain-lain bentuk hubungan seperti kontraktor bebas (independent contractor) atau sumber luar(out-source)
Jika memilih kontrak perkhidmatan, maka wujudlah pekerjaan. Begitulah wujudnya hubungan majikan pekerja.

Majikan dan pekerja : suatu pendekatan fungsional.

Kita sering terfikir adakah menyiapkan tugasan atau kerja merupakan syarat gaji dibayar. Peruntukan undang-undang yang digubal parlimen seperti Akta Kerja 1955 juga tidak memudahkan perkara ini apabila menafsirkan gaji adalah untuk kerja dilakukan atau "work done".
Akibat pandangan gaji kerana tugas yang siap ini, salah satu pembelaan bekas majikan semasa perbicaraan kes buruh adalah kerja tak siap, tidak buat serah tugas atau "handover" yang tidak sempurna.
Jika teori, pekerja digajikan untuk mengambilalih fungsi majikan yang kurang penting agar majikan boleh melaksanakan fungsi lebih penting , persoalan kerja tak siap atau serahtugas tidak menjadi isu. Pemecatan atau pemberhentian pekerja hanyalah proses memulangkan fungsi yang pada asalnya adalah tanggungjawab majikan.
Pembayaran gaji sebagai balasan dalam kontrak perkhidmatan adalah ganjaran penyerahan sementara kebebasan diri oleh pekerja untuk dikawal pergerakan dalam tempoh tertentu (hari-hari dan waktu kerja) bukan kerana siapnya suatu tugas. Malah isu kerja siap pula adalah kawalan majikan yang menentukan apa dan bagaimana suatu tugasan perlu dilaksanakan.
Bekas pekerja hanya perlu membuktikan sepanjang tempoh tuntutan gaji dia berada dalam kawalan majikan (at the disposal of the employer to receive his instructions as he sees fit at his whim and fancy), maka jika pekerja ponteng tidaklah layak ke atas gaji yang dituntut.
Persoalan kerja dengan sengaja enggan disiapkan tidak timbul, jika pekerja berhenti sendiri maka ia hanyalah memulangkan kembali fungsi asal majikan. Pekerja yang sedang berkhidmat pula boleh ditangani melalui proses disiplin.
Kaunseling, surat amaran dan lain-lain kaedah pengurusan sumber manusia dalam menangani isu kerja tidak siap ini pula akan membantu majikan mewajarkan penamatan penyerahan sementara atau pemulangan fungsi kurang penting majikan kepada pekerja.
Jika fungsi majikan yang diserah kepada pekerja dikembalikan kepada majikan, pertambahan fungsi yang dilaksanakan majikan akan berlaku berbanding semasa ada pekerja. Bebanan mungkin tidak tertanggung. Ini akan menyebabkan majikan berfikir panjang sebelum memecat seorang pekerja.
Kesimpulannya gaji adalah ganjaran penyerahan kebebasan diri seorang pekerja berbanding bayaran untuk menyiapkan kerja.

Tuntutan elaun bersalin di Pejabat Buroh

Pindaan Akta Kerja 1955 pada tahun 2012 telah memberikan perlindungan bersalin kepada semua pekerja wanita tanpa mengira upah. Ini bermakna tanpa dijanjikan atau dijadikan syarat perkhidmatan, cuti bersalin enam puluh (60) hari wajib diberi dan setelah memenuhi syarat-syarat tertentu akan layak dibayar elaun bersalin.

Secara asas jika pekerja wanita, tidak dibayar elaun bersalin, maka dia boleh memfailkan tuntutan di mahkamah sivil.

Akta Kerja 1955, yang menjadi otoriti berkaitan pemberian elaun bersalin kepada pekerja-pekerja wanita tanpa mengira gaji juga mempunyai peruntukan berkaitan arahan membayar kepada pihak-pihak yang dimungkiri/ dinafikan hak elaun bersalin. Setelah melalui proses pengaduan, dengan kuasa di bawah akta, pejabat buroh akan membicarakan tuntutan dan memutuskan pengadu layak dibayar atau sebaliknya.

Pindaan 2012, menyatakan pemakaian bahagian elaun bersalin kepada pekerja wanita tanpa mengira gaji. Sesetengah pengamal sumber manusia dan saya sebenarnya, menganggap pindaan 2012 hanya menyebabkan bahagian perlindungan dinikmati perlindungannya oleh semua pekerja wanita. Bahagian-bahagian lain termasuk kuasa pejabat buroh mengarahkan pembayaran setelah pengaduan dibuat di bawah seksyen 69 pula masih mengekalkan "status quo" dan mengekalkan had gaji atau jenis kerja untuk melayakkan mana-mana pekerja wanita yang di bawah Jadual Pertama Akta Kerja 1955  sahaja membuat tuntutan.

Namun isu yang agak rumit, ialah berkaitan pekerja di bawah seksyen 69B. Akta Kerja 1955 dengan niat memberikan perlindungan kepada pekerja di bawah Jadual Pertama, telah dipinda untuk pekerja bergaji melebihi jadual hingga RM 5,000.00 boleh memfailkan tuntutan di bawah seksyen 69B.

Seksyen 69B memanjangkan pemakaian seksyen 69 (1)(a) berkaitan tuntutan syarat-syarat perkhidmatan, dan jika peruntukan ini sahaja di bawah Akta Kerja 1955 maka tiada isu, cuma Akta Kerja 1955 juga telah memberi kuasa khusus di bawah seksyen 69 (1)(b) bagi tuntutan berkaitan "peruntukan" di bawah akta yang tidak dinyatakan dalam surat lantikan atau ketiadaan sebarang kontrak perkhidmatan bertulis.

Mengambil kira keluasan konsep kontrak perkhidmatan, di hampir setiap kanun yang diluluskan parlimen Malaysia, ia adalah dalam bentuk lisan atau bertulis, nyata atau tersirat maka dari sudut pemakaian seksyen 44A tiadalah masalah cuma janggal untuk mendakwa tanpa otoriti dalam bentuk suatu kontrak perkhidmatan bertulis, sukar untuk pejabat buroh menjalankan kuasa di bawah seksyen 69B, kerana ia dalam bentuk " peruntukan" akta berbanding syarat-syarat perkhidmatan seperti kehendak seksyen 69(1)(a).

Pemandu dan Jadual Pertama Akta Kerja 1955

Jadual Pertama Akta Kerja 1955 adalah sekatan kepada mana-mana 'pekerja' yang berniat menuntut faedah kewangan dari majikan melalui Pejabat Buroh. Secara umum semua sedia maklum, had gaji RM 2,000.00 adalah halangan untuk mana-mana pekerja dari menuntut bayaran lebihmasa (overtime-OT). Soalan yang ditanya majikan adalah, "Berapa gaji tak perlu bayar OT?". Sedangkan berdasarkan undang-undang, terdapat peruntukan berkaitan 'pekerja' tanpa mengira upah juga layak dibayar bayaran lebihmasa. Secara khusus bahagian dua (2) Jadual Pertama Akta Kerja 1955.

...(2) Any person who, irrespective of the amount of wages he earns in a month, has entered into a contract of service with an employer in pursuance of which-

(1) he is engaged in manual labour including such labour as an artisan or apprentice: Provided that where a person is employed by one employer partly in manual labour and partly in some other capacity such person shall not be deemed to be performing manual labour unless the time during which he is required to perform manual labour in any one wage period exceeds one-half of the total time during which he is required to work in such wage period;

(2)he is engaged in the operation or maintenance of any mechanically propelled vehicle operated for the transport of passengers or goods or for reward or for commercial purposes;...

Malah terdapat kesilapan dari sudut tafsiran, dengan meletakkan 'pemandu' sebagai 'manual labour' sedangkan berdasarkan Jadual, pemandu tergolong dalam kategori yang berasingan. Malah bahagian dua (2) Jadual secara umum berkaitan 'tidak mengira upah' berbanding mengenai 'manual labour'.

Upah pemandu juga biasanya melebihi RM 5,000.00 sebulan, terutamanya yang terlibat dalam pengendalian lori-lori berat rentas negeri.

Salah satu jalan pintas majikan, ialah mewujudkan hubungan 'kontraktor bebas' untuk mengelakkan dibebani tanggungjawab sebagai 'majikan' di bawah undang-undang. Artikel berikut akan menyentuh kaedah mewujudkan hubungan prinsipal dan kontraktor bebas (independent contractor)