Hong Kong Business Law: Employment Law Case Study and Analysis

This assignment is a case study analyzing employment law within the context of Hong Kong business law. It examines two scenarios involving employee termination, focusing on the concepts of reasonable and summary dismissal as defined by the Employment Ordinance. The analysis applies relevant legal principles and case law, such as Cheung Chi Wah Patrick vs. Hong Kong Cement Co Ltd, to the facts of each case to determine the legality of the dismissals. The study considers factors such as employee misconduct, skill deficiencies, and breaches of confidentiality. The conclusion provides a determination on whether each employee's dismissal was justified based on the presented facts and legal framework.

Running head: HONG KONG BUSINESS LAW
IRAC ON EMPLOYMENT LAW
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Authors Note

1HONG KONG BUSINESS LAW
Issue
In this paper two issues need to be discussed:
i) Whether George can be dismissed through reasonable dismissal mode by Karen; and
ii) Whether Tony can be dismissed through summary dismissal mode by Karen.
Rule
In Hong Kong, the following key legislations deal with employment, namely:
 Employment Ordinance (EO) [Cap 57];
 Protection of Wages on Insolvency Ordinance [Cap 380];
 Employee’s Compensation Ordinance [Cap 282]; and
 Minimum Wage Ordinance [Cap 608] (Mohamed, 2014).
Among these laws, the EO deals with the employer-employee relationship, contract of
employment, recruitment, and termination. There are several termination modes observed under
the Employment Ordinance of Hong Kong, such as reasonable, summary, constructive and
unlawful dismissal ("Hong Kong e-Legislation", 2020).
Under reasonable dismissal mode, an employer may unilaterally dismiss an employment
contract and notify the worker by notice in writing and provide the worker with a replacement
payment for an extra month’s pay ("Hong Kong e-Legislation", 2020). The below-mentioned
reasons are generally used in case of reasonable termination, such as:
 Misconduct of a worker;
 Skill or qualification of a worker;

2HONG KONG BUSINESS LAW
 Unemployment;
 Legal requirements; and
 Other significant reasons.
On the other hand, in case of summarily dismissal mode under section 9 of the
Employment Ordinance, an employer can, without notice or compensation of the wages,
summarily terminate a worker if the worker is in connection with the job:
 Intentionally disrespects a legal or justifiable order; or
 Misconducts himself or herself;
 Is liable for deception or dishonesty; or
 He is purposely negligent towards his responsibilities ("Hong Kong e-Legislation",
2020).
On the grounds of an appeal made by an employer to the Labour Tribunal, the Hong
Kong Court of First Instance (CFI), in the case of Cheung Chi Wah Patrick vs. Hong Kong
Cement Co Ltd [2017] HKCU 2291 held that an employer was allowed to fire a worker instantly
for gross misconduct (Hsia & Chau, 2018).
Analysis
In this given scenario, Karen is the director of Trust Insurance Ltd. where George and
Tony have worked for 30 years and 3 years respectively. The age of George is 58 years and he is
not familiar with the computer system and also refuses to attend the online computer training
program for practicing the use of a computer. Moreover, he misbehaved with one of the
customers over the phone. After receiving complain from that customer Karen fired George with
one month’s notice period.

3HONG KONG BUSINESS LAW
Whereas, Tony provides the company’s secret customer information to another rival
insurance company by receiving huge money. Karen has investigated that Tony also sold the
company’s property and kept that money with him. Moreover, he has discussed the company’s
private affairs with his friend. After seeing all these things Karen also terminated Tony without
notice and compensation.
In the first case, it has been observed that George lacks skill in the computer and out of
frustration misbehaved with the customer. By applying the two rules of reasonable termination
mode, such as misconduct and skill or qualification of a worker it can be said that Karen can
terminate George to protect the reputation of the company.
In the second case, it has been observed that Tony provides secret information of the
company by taking money, sold the company’s property and discussed private affairs of the
company with others. By applying all the rules of summarily dismissal mode and Cheung Chi
Wah Patrick vs. Hong Kong Cement Co Ltd [2017] HKCU 2291 case Karen can terminate
Tony.
Conclusion
Therefore, from the above discussion, it can be concluded that:
i) George can be dismissed through reasonable dismissal mode by Karen;
ii) Tony can be dismissed through summary dismissal mode by Karen.

4HONG KONG BUSINESS LAW
Reference
Hong Kong e-Legislation. (2020). Retrieved 14 April 2020, from
https://www.elegislation.gov.hk/hk/cap57
Hsia, R., & Chau, L. (2018). Industrialisation, Employment and Income Distribution: A Case
Study of Hong Kong (Vol. 3). Routledge.
Mohamed, A. A. A. (2014). Dismissal from Employment and the Remedies. LexisNexis.