Lee Cheuk Lam v Tai Ping Carpets Ltd [2025] 4 HKLRD 90, [2025] HKCFI 2733 (Jeff Yau)
Jeff Yau represented the respondent in Lee Cheuk Lam v Tai Ping Carpets Ltd [2025] 4 HKLRD 90, [2025] HKCFI 2733.
X was employed by R as special projects manager and was later promoted to Head of Human Resources, Asia (HR Head). X discovered a large quantity of company documents and unopened letters unattended for nine years which were left by the former HR director. X found it necessary to check the documents and letters to see if they were related to R’s daily operation (the Extra Work) to be done on the weekends in return for payment of additional wages (the Payment for Extra Work). The chief financial officer (the CFO) verbally and by email approved the Payment for Extra Work. X was paid for the Extra Work from August to December 2015 but such payment was withheld for January 2016. Upon X’s resignation, an amount equivalent to the Payment for Extra Work for August to December 2015 was deducted from the reimbursement payment to which X was entitled from R. X also found that the amount paid to her for unused annual leave was calculated on the basis of 16 days instead of 20 days despite her senior managerial work grade. X commenced the present claim against R in the Labour Tribunal (the Tribunal) for: (i) wrongful deduction of wages; (ii) overtime work payments; (iii) annual leave pay; and (iv) interest on items (i) and (ii). After trial, the Deputy Presiding Officer of the Tribunal (the PO) dismissed X’s claims. X appealed.
Held, allowing the appeal except for on the item of annual leave pay, remitting the case to the Tribunal for retrial and directing the PO to making findings on whether the parties had agreed to make relevant modifications to the employment contract, that:
(1) The PO erred in law in adopting an overly simple approach in deciding that the Payment for the Extra Work could not be wages under the Employment Ordinance (Cap.282) for the sole reason that X gave evidence that she considered the Extra Work to be out of the scope of her own duties. It was for the court and not the parties to evaluate the facts and determine the legal nature of a relationship in the context of employment such that the parties’ own description of the relationship was not determinative. The PO should have investigated the scope of X’s job duties and nature of the Extra Work to make a finding on whether it was within the ambit of X’s scope of work (Chan Kwok Kin v Mok Kwan Hing [1991] 1 HKLR 631 applied). (See paras.23-25, 29-31.)
(2) Even if the Extra Work were outside the scope of the employment contract, X and R (through the CFO) may have formed an implied oral and/or written agreement for X to perform the Extra Work with remuneration for the benefit of R. Here, the PO failed to discharge his duty to investigate whether the employment contract had been modified to allow overtime payment or a separate or collateral agreement had been formed by the CFO’s approval for the Payment of the Extra Work. In the circumstances, X’s appeal on deduction of wages, overtime work payments and interest thereon was allowed. (See paras.27, 28, 31, 32.)
(3) X’s appeal on annual leave pay was not allowed. On the proper interpretation of the employment contract, there was no direct relationship between annual leave entitlements and work level. Under the employment contract, X was only entitled to 16 days’ annual leave. The fact that she was promoted to a higher work level grade (as HR Head) did not automatically entitle her to have 20 days annual leave. (See para.33.)
Appeal
This was the claimant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy Presiding Officer Bosco Cheng of the Labour Tribunal dismissing her claims for: (i) wrongful deduction of wages; (ii) overtime work payments; (iii) annual leave pay; and (iv) interest for (i) and (ii).
[The above is excerpted from the headnote to the report in HKLRD.]
