As permission was granted on 10 June for the lawsuit by bus drivers against SBS Transit to be heard in the High Court, the group of 13 drivers has recently started a crowdfunding campaign to help cover legal fees for the case which has been represented on a pro-bono basis thus far.

One of the drivers, Chua Qwong Meng, started the campaign on behalf of the 13 drivers on GoGetFunding, with a target of S$90,000.

“We are trying to raise $90,000 to help with the High Court trial which might head up to the Court of Appeal,” said Mr Chua on the campaign site, adding that “there is too much at stake to stop here now”.

He explained that several of the drivers’ employment contracts had been terminated since the COVID-19 outbreak in Singapore became more severe. This made it difficult for the group to keep up with the instalments of legal fees to their lawyer, M Ravi.

Fortunately, Mr Ravi stayed on as their lawyer on a pro-bono basis.

In a Facebook post on 10 June, Mr Ravi explained the same thing, expressing that it has not been easy for him and his team.

He explained his decision to act for the drivers on a pro-bono basis as they were “not able to keep up with their installment payments” for the “small fee” he had charged them. This is on top of the other pro-bono cases he and his team have already taken on.

On GoGetFunding, Mr Chua wrote: “After careful thinking, discussing with the other bus drivers and with the support of my family and friends, we have decided to crowdfund to help us with the continuance of this case in the High Court and even further to the Court of Appeal if needed.”

Stressing the importance of seeing the case through for the rights of all workers in Singapore, he added: “We cannot expect our lawyer and his team at K. K. Cheng Law LLC to continue bearing all the costs of this suit especially with regard to the numerous extraneous filing and disbursement fees.

“Whilst we are certain that Mr Ravi will give us highly discounted fees for the trial, we want to thank him, and his team at K. K. Cheng Law LLC but we cannot expect them to continue this journey with us not being paid.

“We the 13 drivers are fighting for fairness so we must also be fair to our legal team too.”

Mr Chua went on to emphasise the group’s belief that this case presents an opportunity for a review of the Employment Act to ensure that it protects all workers and is fair.

“This suit will not just be about myself but also about the other 12 bus drivers’ suits which is pending the outcome of my suit,” he remarked, adding that it will also affect other workers.

The other 12 drivers involved in the case are Mr Lee Chye Chong, Mr Chian Poh Seng, Mr Fung Chean Seng, Mr Tan Ting Hock Robin, Mr Thiyagu Balan, Mr GAn Kim Kiam, Mr Huzainal Hussein, Mr Lim You Onn, Mr Chiew Yi Yee, Mr Meerah Mohamed Halideen, Mr Razak Hasim, and Mr Mohamad Sani Din.

High Court grants permission for case to be transferred from State Courts

On 11 March, Mr Ravi revealed that he had filed an application for the suits to be transferred from the Magistrate Court to the High Court “as there are several important questions of law of public interest relating to provisions in the Employment Act which will affect their cases and potentially all 6000 SBS drivers”.

He stated that the suits will be a test for the rights of all employees in Singapore.

After hearing from both sides – SBS Transit is represented by team of lawyers led by Senior Counsel Davinder Singh – Justice Audrey Lim found that the certain questions of law raised in the suits affect not only the 13 SBS Transit bus drivers, but also “a larger class of employees including those in the public transport sector who may potentially fall within the definition of employees” under Part III of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (CLA).

Justice Lim also addressed Mr Chua’s action of urging his case to be made a ‘test case’. While the State Courts Act (SCA) does not provide a definition of a ‘test case’, the judge noted that both SBS Transit and the drivers accept the definitions in Black’s Law Dictionary, which state that a ‘test case’ is:

1. A lawsuit brought to establish an important legal principle or right. Such an action is frequently brought by the parties’ mutual consent on agreed facts – when that is so, a test case is also sometimes termed amicable action or amicable suit; or

2. An action selected from several suits that are based on the same facts and evidence, raise the same question of law, and have a common plaintiff or a common defendant. Sometimes, when all parties agree, the court orders a consolidation and all parties are bound by the decision in the test case. – Also termed test action.

In the present case, the action brought by the SBS Transit drivers to transfer the suit falls within the definition of a “test case”, as it fits the second definition stated above, said Justice Lim.

She also rejected SBS Transit’s submission that a test case should, on top of the second definition above, include case management “or other concerns which would make the matter unsuitable for determination by the State Courts”.

Background on the case

On 3 Mar last year, five bus drivers argued that by failing to compensate its bus drivers at the basic hourly rate of pay for their waiting time between shifts, SBS Transit had breached an implied term stated in their service agreement.

The lawsuit arose after the two parties had failed to reach a settlement in their final mediation session between the first tranche of suits as reported in Feb last year.

In a statement of claim filed in the State Courts that month, the bus drivers alleged that the company has breached several provisions under the EA — the statutory legislation upon which the terms and conditions pertaining to their working hours and overtime were based on.

The bus drivers claimed that SBS Transit had failed to compensate them at the basic hourly rate of pay “for the period between 4 a.m. to 5 a.m. on the morning and split shifts” in which the drivers are “engaged to be waiting”, and “between 9 a.m. and 1 p.m. on the split shift”.

SBS Transit, they added, had also failed to abide by Clause 24(9) of the Service Agreement by not compensating them the agreed allowance of $18 for work done on the night shift.

The company, they alleged, had also breached Section 36(1) of the EA by failing to provide on a roster a weekly rest day.

In addition, the company had violated Section 37(3)(b) and Section 37(3)(c) of the EA by not paying them “the statutorily prescribed rate” of a sum at the basic rate of pay for two days’ worth of work, the bus drivers argued.

By imposing a “Built-In Overtime” that resulted in the bus drivers working for longer than the statutorily prescribed daily work period of eight hours as well as 44 hours per week, SBS Transit had also breached Section 38(1) of the EA, according to the bus drivers.

Other breaches under the EA allegedly made by SBS Transit, as claimed by the bus drivers, include compensating them at the normal hourly rate of pay — instead of the statutorily prescribed rate of an extra day’s salary at the basic rate of pay for one day’s work, in addition to the gross rate of pay for that day — for work done on public holidays.

The five additional bus drivers bring the total number of bus drivers currently taking legal action against SBS Transit to 13.

Subscribe
Notify of
4 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

工作设备被充公 许渊臣用旧手机发文解释诽谤指控调查

本社总编许渊臣,针对有关刑事诽谤指控的调查,作出数点澄清,为外界解惑。 在今年9月18日,资讯通信媒体发展局(IMDA),援引《广播法》第16(1)项,要求本社在六小时内撤下被指违规的贴文,本社已遵照该局的指示删除贴文。 这篇文章是由一名非常规撰稿人发表。资媒局质问本社刊载这篇文章的编采决策,许渊臣这么写道: “就出版编辑标准而言,已阐明该文章为读者来函。我们的立场,公众针对政府是否腐败可保留个人意见。例如,总理已在国会澄清弟妹对他的指控,那任何人重提总理弟妹的控诉,也算是不符事实的?” 至于文章中指控当权者篡改宪法,任何对宪法的修改,例如违背公众意见,为了特定议程修改总统选举制,都可算是篡改。 许渊臣也回应,对读者来函只负责校对文句,如涉及任何未公开事实的指控,本社将与有关当局求证。他也重申,若整篇文章牵涉如藐视法庭或刑事诽谤等法律问题,都不会被刊登,除非有关读者能提供进一步的资讯佐证。 个体或机构是不可能以上述形式对政府构成伤害的。在欠缺媒体自由的情况下,政府已经在多个场合重申,容许公民批评政府。 根据资媒局文告,在上述文章被移除后,资媒局在10月4日向警方报案。 警方在星期二上午依据庭令,扣押了我的两台桌面型电脑、两部手机、三台笔记型电脑、两部平板电脑、三部硬盘和其它电子储存设备等。 许渊臣申请在警方完成调查后能把归还上述设备,但被拒绝了。只有结案之后,才能索回。 他在昨午3时30分,在广东民大厦接受盘问,至11时30分结束。目前,上述案件还在调查中。 –许渊臣透过旧手机撰文发布…

Singapore Customs: Company director fined $1.4m for importing duty-unpaid soju

Singapore Customs (SC) has announced that a company director was sentenced by…

志工工作忙中带甜 分享派送国庆礼包趣事

作为一名派送国庆礼包志工,工作非常忙碌却不失乐趣,尤其能看尽世间百态,马国女子薛淑钦,就在脸书上分享了其中一些趣事。 她在脸书群组“走,新加坡”中,分享自己成为此次国庆礼包派送志工,四个小时半的工作令她获益良多,还遇到了令他印象深刻的街坊们,包括了碎碎念的uncle、代老板领礼包的女佣、帮朋友领礼包的女子、礼包被人领走了还不放弃的老人家,甚至有人要帮她找对象! 她指出,礼包是依据住址进行派发,即一户家庭一个,因此有不少人在领礼包时,发现“包包”已经被领走了,有者就质问“为什么给他?”、有者则希望家中能够一人一个,而有一名可爱的老人家,虽然知道礼包已经被领走了却还不放弃,最后薛淑钦只能从被人退回的礼包中拿出一幅国旗送他,想象一下都觉得老人家太逗了。 当然,也有非常有礼貌的人们来领礼包,包括代表一家之主的小男孩在领了礼包后,腼腆地向她说“谢谢,阿姨”,但是小朋友,大部分女子都希望被叫的年轻一些哦。还有发现民众发现志工没有水喝,就自动从礼包中拿出饮料给她。 此外,薛淑钦在协助送出礼包时,民众联络所的员工就请她作为代表,拍下宣传照,令她感到高兴之余,又希望能够拿到那美美的照片留恋。 在帖文总结中,她指出,“虽然义工工作又渴又累又热,但是很好玩,收获的喜悦和满足费笔墨所能形容”。 为善最乐 来自马来西亚的薛淑钦坚信为善最乐,因此也并非首次当志工。她之前曾参与了愿之心(Willing Hearts)、华社自助理事会(CDAC)的社区焕文阅读计划等活动。 薛淑钦本着独乐乐不如众乐乐的精神,在本月13日发出帖文,呼吁民众参与愿之心的“洗菜、切菜、料理食材”职工活动,欢迎各位有兴趣的朋友参与。