1. Employment law in Malaysia is generally governed by the Employment Act 1955
(“Employment Act”). Based on Schedule 1 of the Employment Act, the protection under
the Employment Act only applies to these categories of employees (“EA Employees”):
a. Employees whose monthly salary does not exceed RM2,000
b. Employees who are engaged in manual labour, regardless of salary
c. Employees engaged in the operation or maintenance of mechanically propelled
vehicle
d. Employees who supervise or oversees other employees engaged in manual labour
e. Employees engaged in any capacity on a vessel (subject to certain other
conditions)
f.
Domestic servants
2. Definition of Manual Labour
a) Manual labour is labour that uses the physical faculties of the body; labour that
exhibits physical skill; the “work of the hands”.
b) Manual labour is manual work which requires toil and effort and if his duties are
substantially or purely physical in nature with every little or no mental effort.
c) When no paperwork is involved and neither do such work require any exercise
of an intellectual nature. It is purely mechanical and physical in nature.
d) Sometimes, manual and non-manual workers are differentiated by asking whether
the employee works in an office or not. Thus, office workers could be considered
non-manual workers.
e) Does not require skill, knowledge or experience
f) Done according to employer’s specific instructions
g) Repetitious in nature or done at very specified intervals
h) Work primarily involves use of hands without utilisation of intelligence or creativity
i)
No special qualification or education required
1
3. Categories of workers who are NOT manual labours based on case laws.
Categories
Case
Supervisor Storekeeper
Md Zaini bin Abdullah & Ors v Panasonic
Evidence of Job scope
Automative Systems (2022)
Approved the leave applications
of his subordinates

Signed gate passes for his
subordinates

Had a supervisory responsibility
over his subordinates

Exercised an executive, even
managerial, capacity in his job
Engineering Assistant
Md Zaini bin Abdullah & Ors v Panasonic
Automative Systems (2022)
Evidence of Job scope-:

maintained machines to support
production and during
breakdowns;

performed highly diversified
duties: to install, to troubleshoot
problems, to repair and maintain
production equipment;

performed Jig fabrication
according to job requests i.e. he
customised Jigs (A Jig is a device
or tool that supports the making of
the products);

attended to both emergency and
scheduled repairs;

liaised with clients;

played a prominent role in the
production process;
2

his work reduced the downtime in
production;

he is highly trained and qualified.
Engineering Assistant
Md Zaini bin Abdullah & Ors v Panasonic
Evidence of Job scope-:
Automative Systems (2022)

has multiple certificates;

is highly skilled and trained;

handled all types of machinery;

in the night shift, he is the person
who solved or managed the
problems;

no one else has his skills.
Maintenance Technician
Md Zaini bin Abdullah & Ors v Panasonic
Evidence of Job scope-:

Automative Systems (2022)
managed the machine used for
Jig fabrication;

maintained and repaired the
conveyor and lifters, to ensure a
smooth production and minimise
downtime;

maintained and repaired the clean
room cushion detection Jigs;

maintained and repaired the
wonder gun vacuum unit;

fabricated Jigs for new models
according to the production
team’s request i.e. he too
customised Jigs;

can do what an engineer can do.
Senior Craftsman
Colgate Palmolive (M) Sdn. Bhd. v. Cheong
Foo Weng & 12 Ors. [2001]
3
Electrical Technician
Colgate Palmolive (M) Sdn. Bhd. v. Cheong
Foo Weng & 12 Ors. [2001]
Instrument Technician
Colgate Palmolive (M) Sdn. Bhd. v. Cheong
Foo Weng & 12 Ors. [2001]
Waste Water Technician
Colgate Palmolive (M) Sdn. Bhd. v. Cheong
Foo Weng & 12 Ors. [2001]
Boiler Attendant
Colgate Palmolive (M) Sdn. Bhd. v. Cheong
Foo Weng & 12 Ors.
Head of Security
PHILEO ALLIED SECURITIES SDN.BHD v
WONG SEE FOOK [2006] ILJU 135
Evidence of Job scope –
supervised and trained other security
personnel or security guards who are
other employees engaged in manual
labour.
The Court is unable to accept this
argument because during the Hearing the
Claimant did not adduce any evidence
that the security guards whom he
supervised or trained are engaged in
manual labour.
Electrical Charge man, who was promoted
to Maintenance Executive
Evidence of Job scope-:
was in charge of maintenance,
maintaining electrical breakdown,
servicing electrical equipments, keeping
4
Chareon Pokphand
clean the sub-station, trouble shooting
and repairing electrical equipments.
4. Categories of workers who are manual labours based on case laws.
Categories
Case
Senior Production Supervisor
ONG SIEW GIEK @ CHEH SIEW GIEK v
INTERNATIONAL FOOTWEAR (PG) SDN
BHD
Crane Operator
SEE YONG & SON CONSTRUCTION SDN
BHD v THIAN KIM FATT
Printing Machine Operator
Alamgir v Cass Printing & Packaging Sdn Bhd
Carpenter
HO TECK FAH v LOOI WAH T/A LOOI
CONSTRUCTION
Mechanical Technical
Electrical & Instrumental Technician
Production Technician
Crane Operator
Health Technician cum Radio Operator
Syed Ibrahim Syed Mohamed v Exxonmobil
Exploration & Production Malaysia
Syed Ibrahim Syed Mohamed v Exxonmobil
Exploration & Production Malaysia
Syed Ibrahim Syed Mohamed v Exxonmobil
Exploration & Production Malaysia
Syed Ibrahim Syed Mohamed v Exxonmobil
Exploration & Production Malaysia
Syed Ibrahim Syed Mohamed v Exxonmobil
Exploration & Production Malaysia
.
Note
Some jobs like “electrician” or “instrument technician” have been held to be manual labour in
one case, and not manual labour in another case
5