A demotion normally involves a reduction in rank or status, or a decrease in job responsibilities and/or salary. An employer may wish to demote an employee for a variety of reasons including poor performance, capability and/or as an alternative to termination.Regardless of the reason for the demotion, an employer should be careful when demoting an employee. Any demotion should be managed professionally and lawfully; failure to do so may expose the employer to an unwanted claim.
The Secretary for Labour and Welfare has recently announced that the Employment (Amendment) (No. 3) Ordinance 2018, which increases statutory paternity leave to five days, will come into operation on 18 January 2019.
The Labour Tribunal is intended to be a quick and informal venue for hearing disputes between an employer and employee.
The Employment (Amendment) (No. 3) Ordinance 2018 (“Amendment Ordinance”) was gazetted on 2 November 2018. Under the Amendment Ordinance, the statutory paternity leave under the Employment Ordinance Cap. 57 (“EO”) will increase from three days to five days.
It is common for employers to have an internal disciplinary procedure to provide a speedy and fair process to address any wrongdoing in the workplace, and to determine the appropriate disciplinary sanction that should be taken against such wrongdoing.
It is common to find employers imposing post-termination restraints (“PTRs”) on employees in order to restrict the post-termination activities of the employees with the aim of protecting the employer’s businesses.Post-termination restrictions are often used by employers to restrict an employee from: joining competitors; poaching employees; soliciting clients or customers; or dealing with clients or suppliers.
Whether you are an employee or an employer, it pays to have an understanding of the law regarding redundancies. While last year saw significant job cuts across the finance and aviation industries, redundancies can occur in any industry at any time due to a range of political, technological and economic factors.
Gall was instructed to act for Sunny Tadjudin against the Bank of America in this landmark employment law case. The “Sunny Case” is considered the leading authority in respect of bonus claims in Hong Kong. In the Bank’s latest appeal, the Court considered the issue of whether an anti-avoidance provision can be implied into an employment contract.This judgment has repercussions for all employers in Hong Kong who pay bonuses, especially those in the financial sector. In line with many other jurisdictions, the Court of Appeal confirmed that it is unlawful for Hong Kong employers to terminate an employee’s employment in order to avoid the employee being eligible for assessment of discretionary bonus and payment.Gall’s employment team, led by Nick Gall (Partner), Andrea Randall (Partner) and Stephen Chan (Senior Associate) report on their recent Court of Appeal victory.
On 2 March 2016, the Employment (Amendment) Bill 2016 (the “Bill”) was introduced to the Legislative Council. The Bill seeks to empower the Labour Tribunal to make an order for reinstatement or re-engagement as requested by an employee in a case of unreasonable and unlawful dismissal without the need to first secure the employer's agreement. The Bill does not change the current framework in regards to unreasonable dismissals that are not unlawful.
In a judgment that will have repercussions for all employers in Hong Kong, the Hong Kong Court of First Instance rejected arguments that the courts are strictly bound by legislation and express terms of an employment contract. Calling Hong Kong’s employment protection “minimal” and recommending that the courts “exercise judicial creativity” to “maintain a fair balance” between employers and employees, it upheld an employee’s claim that an implied term prevented her employer from dismissing her to avoid paying a bonus.
