Benefit To Employees Wages Law Employment Essay

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

Parliament has made certain amendment provision in the act in order to protect the employee's right. The amendment also is to ensure not only the right of worker to be protect but also to ensure the employers can run their business smoothly. One factor become an issues which cause the problem is regarding the salary of the employee. Hence, in contract of service, the wages must be paid to employees according to the contract that both parties has agreed. [1] If the employee do any work which is not in the contract, the employers has a right not to pay any wages to them. Then, the employee itself can reject any order from the employer if they ask the worker to do something which is not in the contract. [2] 

Under section 25 in this act [3] , the wording of the act is the payment of wages through bank. The important of the amendment is because to ensure the safety of the worker and also the employer. Before the amendment was made to this provision, the mode of payment by the employer to pay the wages to their worker is by cash. At that time there is no fix system for the employer to pay the salary to the worker. Hence, when the employer pay the wages by cash, it can raise any problem to employer and employer such as theft and robbery. As an example, at the end of the month when the employer hold money in their office to be pay to the worker, the robber will rob the employer to take the money. The employees also will face a same problem after they receive the wages, they might be rob by any person who want to take the money.

Another reason why the payment must made through the bank is because it is more secure than pay by cash. As we know when the pay through bank there will be evidence on our account to prove to the court if there is a problem arise between employer and employee about the wages. As an example if the employer intentionally only pay half from the full amount of the wages, the employee may use the bank statement to bring to the court to prove that the employer fail to pay full amount if wages. So this amendment makes it easier for the employer to make payment of wages and also in the same time it will give protection to the employee if there is dispute arise between employer and employee.

Next amendment can be seen in the section 25A [4] in the same act, where it stated that the payment of wages can be made other than bank. The reason to this amendment is to give opportunity for the employee to choose other method of payment other than through bank. As we can see in section 25A (1) of the act [5] there is two way which by legal tender or by cheque. Even though the law allowed the wages paid other than through a bank, the employee must make a written request to the employer if they wanted to be pay through cheque or legal tender. [6] 

Under section 24 of Employment Act 1955, the amendment is made in order to protect the employer itself. Under this section, the deduction of wages is lawful. Under the act [7] , deduction can be made if there is overpayment of wages even though it is the employer's mistake. If the employer allowed the advance money to the employee, in return the employer can deduct the wages from the actual amount [8] . As an example, if a person earned RM 1200.00 per month and he ask for advanced from the employer for RM 500.00, at the end of the month the employer may deduct RM 500.00 when the payment of wages been made. The deduction also can be made upon request by the employee in respect any loan of any sum money due to trade union or deduction made because of any share of employer's business offered by the employer. [9] 

Another amendment we can see in the section 31 of Employment Act 1955. The provision clearly stated that the wages of the employee is more important than other debt. It clear shows that the right of the employee is protected and the employer cannot run away from their responsibilities. We may refer in the case of Weng Neng Medical & Liquor (KL) SDN BHD v Fountain Industries SDN BHD [10] , where in this case the argument was whether the employees is qualify for the priority payment. In this the court held that the employees was not a worker when the auction happen. Hence when we apply our situation, if an employees is the worker at that time, the employees has the right to get the wages under section 31 of Employment Act 1955.

Hours Of Work

The purpose amend the section 60A (1) of Employment Act 1955 is to remove the ambiguity which arise the words five consecutive hours which is stated in section 60A (1)(a). It is because when we interpret the wording of five consecutive hours we may get confuse and it can cause trouble to the employee. As an ordinary person it is hard for them to read the intention of the parliament when they pass this act. Then under section 60A (1A) it clearly shows the amendment is to protect the employer. In this section the employer may prove that there is certain special circumstances that they need the employee to work in excess the limit time by getting the approval from Director General.

Even though section 60A (1A) more favour on the employer, to ensure fairness to the employee, under subsection (1B) [11] , the employee who not satisfy with Director General's decision may appeal in writing to Minister within 30 days. So the employee still has a solution to solve if they think that the decision by the Director General abuse their right.

Rest Day

The amendment under section 59 (1) of Employment Act 1955 is to ensure the employees to get rest one whole day every week. The amendment make the last of the rest day for a week. After the amendment, if there is public holidays fall on the rest day, the next after the rest day is the rest day for the employees. We may refer in the case of Hotel Perdana Sdn Bhd v National Union of Hotel Bar & Restaurant Workers, Peninsular Malaysia [12] , the union wanted to know if the public holiday fall on the rest day, is whether the subsequent day consider as paid rest day. It was held that the subsequent day must be paid as a rest day because it is unfair and against the law if the rest day is not replace by the employer. If the employer still did not follow the law they may commit an offence under the act. [13] Under section 59 (1B) of Employment Act 1955, the main reason this subsection was amended is because to enabling the employee to accumulate his rest day for a month and to enjoy the longer period of break. The employer before grant the employee his rest day, the employer must make written application to Director General to approve such application. If the Director General approve, the employer may grant such a rest day to the employee.

Even though the law clearly fixed the rest day on the last day of the week, if the employer with bona fide order the employee to work on the rest day, the employee must follow the order. We may refer in the case of Kesatuan Pekerja- pekerja Perusahaan Dunlop Malaysia v DMIB BHD [14] , where there is dispute between the employer and also the employee. The employer rotate the shift of the employee which in result abolish the rest day which stated in section 59 (1) of Employment act 1955. The court held that the employer is not liable because the rotation system is with a good intention and not mean to abused the employee's right. Practically even though the employer has the right to do the rotation system, they must paid the rest day in another day.