隨著科技發展一日千里，「零工經濟」近年成爲新興全球趨勢。零工經濟泛指自由工作者通過線上求職平台轉介並獲取兼職工作機會，工作性質通常是為某個項目特別而設或臨時性質的工作。因應新冠肺炎肆虐和科技高速發展，就業市場產生前所未有的變化，零工經濟亦因此應運而生。僱主傾向減低長期員工的比例，並同時增加更多臨時/兼職員工，增加靈活性。零工經濟的增長也受惠於高速發展的線上平台和電商行業，例如外賣平台和租車平台。銀行、零售和資訊科技等傳統行業亦聘用更多的自由工作者，提高其組織的靈活性。本文將研究自由工作者，或俗稱「炒散王」，在目前的法律框架下的權益和定位。

自由工作者在香港的定位

雖然零工經濟在香港是一個嶄新的概念，但這種特殊的關係仍然由傳統的「僱員/自僱」二分法作區分。根據合同的具體條款，自由工作者可以被視為「僱員」，亦可能被視為「判頭或自僱人士」。如果自由工作者在法律上被界定為僱員，他將有權享有《僱傭條例》（第 57 章）「EO」、《僱員補償條例》（第 282 章）「ECO」和《強制性公積金計劃條例》（第 485 章）「MPFSO」等法例下的法定權益和保障。

因此，要了解香港法律框架下自由工作者的合法權利，首先必須了解僱員/自僱人士的分別，以及相對應的權益。下表概括了香港法律制度下的自僱人士、固定限期的僱員和無固定限期的僱員在權益上的主要區別：-

	自僱人士	固定限期的僱員	無固定限期的僱員
性質	自僱	僱員
僱傭條例	不適用	適用
僱員補償條例	不適用	適用
法定僱員福利 – 有薪年假	×	如僱員於連續性合約受僱不少於12個月，僱員將依法享有法定有薪年假 (Part 8A, EO)。
法定僱員福利 – 疾病津貼	×	如僱員於連續性合約受僱不少於1個月，僱員將依法享有法定疾病津貼 (Part 7, EO)。
法定僱員福利 – 遣散費	×	如僱員於連續性合約受僱不少於24個月，如 僱員因裁員而遭僱主解僱或被停工，僱員將依法享有遣散費 (Part 5A, EO)。
法定僱員福利 – 長期服務金	×	如僱員於連續性合約受僱不少於5年，並 (i)  非基於因犯嚴重過失而遭即時解僱或因裁員而遭解僱
		(ii) 向僱主呈交註冊醫生或註冊中醫發出指定的證明書，證明他永久不適合擔任現時的工作，並因健康原因辭職
		(iii) 65 歲或以上的僱員因年老而辭職
		(iv) 僱員在職期間死亡；或
		(v) 有固定期限的僱傭合約，在合約期滿後不獲續約 (如僱主在合約終止日前以書面要求僱 員續訂合約或以新合約重新聘用，僱員不能不合理地拒絕該項要求）
法定僱員福利 – 強積金	任何人須在成為自僱人士的首60日內自行選擇強積金計劃及開立一個自僱人士帳戶。	僱主必須為計劃供款，並從僱員的收入中扣除部分收入作為供款，除非僱員受僱的固定期限少於 60 天。
終止僱傭合約	視乎自僱人士以及網上平台訂立的合約條款	僱員或僱主任何一方以通知期或代通知金，終止僱傭合約
		僱主在以下情況，可即時解僱僱員，而無須預先通知或給予代通知金，如僱員在與其僱傭有關的事宜上： 故意不服從僱主合法合理的命令； 行為不當； 欺詐、不忠實； 慣常疏忽職責；或 因任何其他理由而僱主有權根據普通法無須給予通知。
		僱員在以下情況，可即時終止僱傭合約，而無須預先通知或給予代通知金，如； 合理地恐懼身體會受到暴力或疾病的危害； 受僱主苛待； 已為僱主連續工作不少於 5 年，而經註冊醫生或註冊中醫發出指定的證明書，證明永久不適合擔任現時的工作；或 因任何其他理由而僱員有權根據普通法無須給予通知而終止合約。
		僱傭合約届滿
因工遭遇意外以致身體受傷的損傷的補償	×	如僱員在受僱工作期間因工遭遇意外以致身體受傷，僱主需依法作出賠償 (s5 ECO)。

如上表所示，在現行僱傭保障的制度下，大部分的僱傭權益源於「僱員」的身份。大部分的情況下，企業通常希望以自僱人士的方式聘請自由工作者，因爲以此形式聘請自由工作者，僱主不需向强積金供款和對僱員承擔法定權益，從而節省成本。然而，零工就業是否構成僱員或自僱人士不能一概而論。

根據香港案例，即使僱主於合同以「代理人」、「顧問」、「自由工作者」或「判頭」（或其他頭銜）稱呼僱員，該僱員仍有可能在法律上被界定為「僱員」。除此之外，其他司法管轄區的法院亦曾裁定自由工作者為僱員，從而享有某些僱傭保障和權利。例如，最近英國最高法院一致認為UBER司機為英國僱傭法下的「工人」，因此享有法定最低工資和有薪年假等僱傭權益 (詳見Uber BV and others (Appellants) v Aslam and others (Respondents) [2021] UKSC 5)。阿姆斯特丹上訴法院裁定，在線外賣平台 Deliveroo 的外賣員在法律上為僱員；而西班牙巴塞隆那法院亦曾下令Deliveroo需支付 130 萬歐元作爲僱傭供款。由於上述裁決都是在 2021年頒佈的，它們很有可能影響著其他地區的法庭 (包括丹麥、奧地利和瑞典等) 在同類案件中的取態或政府政策，為自由工作者提供更多保障。

香港法院的考慮因素

在香港，僱主與僱員關係視乎個別個案的具體情況而定。香港終審法院於Poon Chau Nam v Yim Siu Cheung [2007] HKCFA 19 作出的判詞很有指導性，該案裁定界定僱主與僱員關係需以一個基於就業背景下的整體印象來決定。 在 Tang Chau Yuet v Fu Kin Po [2011] 1 HKLRD 519案中，香港法院裁定在考慮僱傭關係會考慮下列的因素，當中包括： –

(1) 僱主對僱員的控制程度：如果僱員有權自行決定何時、何地或以何種方式工作，僱員傾向被界定為「自僱人士」而不是「僱員」;

(2) 僱員會否自行提供的設備；

(3) 僱員會否自行僱用助手；

(4) 僱員會否自行承擔財務風險及其程度；

(5) 僱員在執行任務時有否機會從有效的管理獲利；

(6) 僱員承擔的投資和管理責任；

(7) 僱員在的僱主組織所擔當的角色；

(8) 僱主為僱員承擔保險和稅收的責任；

(9) 僱員會否在同樣行業自行經營業務；

(10) 當事人對自己關係的看法；和

(11) 有關行業或專業的行業做法。

香港法院將如何看待企業與自由工作者的僱傭關係仍有待觀察。在這方面，可以參考英國最高法院在 Uber 一案中的判決，法官一致作出以下結論，認定 Uber 司機為英國僱傭法下的「工人」，並强調以下的因素：

(1) 固定報酬——Uber對票價有控制權，並有權根據乘客投訴作出全額或部分退款。

(2) 標準合約條款——Uber司機必須接受Uber訂立的標準合約條款。

(3) 限制司機接受乘客的權利——Uber通過控制提供給司機的資訊，從而控制司機接受要約的能力，再而監察司機接受和取消要約的比率，作出相對的懲處。

(4) 對車輛類型和平台的控制——提供服務的線上平台由Uber全資擁有和控制

(5) 限制乘客和司機之間的溝通——乘客與司機的溝通被限於提供租車服務。

Uber案的判決僅限於該案的具體情況。即使出現相近的因素，亦可能產生截然不同的裁決。 故此，在線平台、電商或任何打算僱用自由工作者的企業，亦應詳細考慮上述的因素，評估他們與自由工作者的僱傭關係。

如果你就上述希望了解更多，歡迎你通過以下信息與我們的合夥人Anna Chan聯繫。

Prelude

It is not at all surprising in Hong Kong for job applicants to back out of the already accepted job offer and accept a better job offer with a more competitive remuneration package. In practice, usually the innocent employer would save themselves the hassle of chasing after the defaulting recruits and simply find a substitute from the job market, especially for those junior or middle-level positions. However, this may not always be the case and the recent judgment handed down by the Court of Appeal in the Hong Kong case Law Ting Pong Secondary School v Chen Wai Wah [2021] HKCA 873 demonstrated clearly that not honouring a signed employment contract may come with a price even before commencement of the employment. 

Overview of the case facts

The case of Law Ting Pong Secondary School started off at the Hong Kong Labour Tribunal and was argued all the way up to the Court of Appeal. 

In gist, this case concerned a teacher who was offered employment by a local secondary school. On 17 July 2017, this teacher was given (a) an Offer of Appointment; (b) the Conditions of Service for Teachers; and (c) a Letter of Acceptance in respect of his then potential employment with the school. The teacher signed and returned the Conditions of Service and the Letter of Acceptance to the school on the same day. The Letter of Acceptance stated that:- 

“I accept the appointment offered in your letter dated 17th July 2017 in accordance with the attached Conditions of Service for Teachers in Law Ting Pong Secondary School.

I also understand that once I accept this contract, the conditions of the new contract will come to [sic] immediate effect e.g. I need to give three months’ notice to terminate my employment with the school.

I confirm that I have read and understood all the above conditions and hereby agree to abide by them.”

The Conditions of Service stated that the period of employment would be “from 1st September 2017 to 31st August 2018”. Under the Conditions of Service, the teacher was required to give the school three months’ notice in writing, or payment in lieu of notice, or a combination of both in order to terminate the employment contract “in order to terminate my [i.e. his] employment with the school” [Emphasis Added] (the “Termination Provisions”). In August 2017 the teacher backed out of the contract. The school then claimed against the teacher for payment in lieu of notice pursuant to the Termination Provisions. 

The school succeeded at the Labour Tribunal and was awarded damages in the sum of HK$139,593 (equivalent to 3 months’ payment in lieu of notice). 

The teacher subsequently appealed against such decision and the same was overturned by the Court of First Instance. The Court of First Instance held that the Letter of Acceptance did not form part of the specified terms offered by the school to the teacher, as, inter alia, the Conditions of Service did not make any reference to the Letter of Acceptance. Accordingly, the employment should be read as only starting on 1 September 2017 in accordance with the terms of the Conditions of Service, and hence the teacher was not liable to make any payment in lieu as his employment had not commenced at the time when he back out of the employment contract.

Thereafter, the school further appealed against the decision of the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal restored the decision of the Labour Tribunal. The judgment of the Court of Appeal can be summarised as follows:-

1. The Offer of Appointment, the Letter of Acceptance and the Conditions of Service were given to the teacher together when the school’s offer of employment was made, thus the terms of all the three documents were accepted as a “package deal”. Accordingly, it must be plain and reasonably understood by the teacher, that the school was offering (and only ready to offer) employment on the basis set out in all the three documents. It follows that the Letter of Acceptance formed part of the contract between the school and the teacher, thus should be taken into consideration for adjudication of the matter. 
2. A reasonable person shall take the Letter of Acceptance to mean that the terms of the employment contract would come into immediate effect such that the teacher would have to give 3 months’ notice to terminate the same. This shall be obvious as the notice requirement under the Termination Provision was specifically used as an example of the terms of the employment contract taking immediate effect.
3. Further, the fact that the period of employment would start from 1 September 2017 only meant that the teacher’s performance of teaching duties was to commence on a future date. In general, a valid contract had legal effects, for example, as to repudiatory or anticipatory breach, and was enforceable immediately when it was made, irrespective of the time of performance. Hence, although performance of teaching duties would commence on a future date (i.e. 1 September 2017), as from 17 July 2017 (i.e. the date of signing the contract) both parties were both legally bound to perform their obligations under the contract.
4. In response to the defendant teacher’s argument that the amount required to terminate the employment contract under the Termination Provision was wholly disproportionate to the monetary loss that the school might suffer and any legitimate interests of the school (thus is a penalty clause and unenforceable), the Court ruled that a clause could only be a penalty if it operated upon a breach of contract (i.e. a liquidated damages clause). The payment of a sum in lieu of notice under the Termination Provisions was a contractually agreed method of lawful termination of the employment contract; it was not in the nature of damages for breach of contract. It was therefore a primary obligation to pay rather than a secondary obligation arising upon the breach of a primary obligation of performance, thus not a penalty clause.
5. The Court further completed the analysis by commenting that the Termination Provisions would still be enforceable even if the same was a liquidated damages clause. On this issue, the Court of Appeal clarified the test to determine whether a clause was a penalty clause was, whether the relevant clause was out of all proportion to the innocent party’s legitimate interest in enforcing the contract; and that the innocent party could have a legitimate interest in the performance of the contract or some appropriate alternative to performance that goes beyond compensation. In applying the test, the Court shall first identify the legitimate interest of the innocent party that is being protected by the clause, then move on to assess whether the clause is out of all proportion to such legitimate interest by considering the circumstances in which the contract was made. 
6. Accordingly, the teacher was ordered to, inter alia, pay to the school HK$139,593, being payment in lieu of 3 months’ notice.

Takeaways

The case of Law Ting Pong Secondary School suggests that once the employment contract is signed, the agreed notice under its termination provision has to be observed, even before the commencement of the employment.

However, it is arguable that Law Ting Pong Secondary School turns on its specific facts that the employer school has made it explicit on the Letter of Acceptance that the conditions of the employment contract came to immediate effect upon execution and the notice requirement under the Termination Provision was specifically used as an example for illustrating the same. 

Further, it is also not certain as to what the Court’s decision would be if any probation period is provided for in respect of the relevant employment. It seems the Court did not pay any regard to Section 6(3A) of the Employment Ordinance (Cap.57) when reaching its decision in Law Ting Pong Secondary School, which provides that:-

“Where in any contract of employment, whether in writing or oral, it has been expressly agreed that the employment is on probation and the contract makes provision for the length of notice required for its termination such contract may be terminated —
(a) notwithstanding the length of notice provided for in the contract, by either party at any time during the first month of such employment without notice or payment in lieu;

(b) by either party at any time after the first month of such employment by giving to the other party notice of the agreed period, but not less than 7 days.”

In light of the Court of Appeal’s decisions in Law Ting Pong Secondary School, it seems the legal position in such scenario could possibly be, albeit awkward, (a) the employee will be required to give notice equals to such length as stated in the employment contract if he chooses to back out of the contract; and (b) no notice is required if he chooses to terminate his employment in the first month of his probation by operation of Section 6(3A) of the Employment Ordinance (which kicks in following the commencement of the employment).

How can OLN help?

As can be seen, it would be advisable for employers to clearly and expressly document in its employment contract the notice period and/or the termination mechanism if the employee fails to show up on the commencement date of employment as agreed. The degree of clarity required in this regard can be very demanding. 

We have practical experience in helping employers with the drafting and review of employment-related documentation to ensure the same complies with the employment law regime in Hong Kong and latest development on the same, so as to protect employers’ interest.
 
On the other hand, we also assist, from time to time, employees on the review of employment-related documentation and advise employees on any potential legal consequences arising from their employment contracts.

If you have any question regarding the topic discussed or other employment issues, please contact our Partner Mr. Victor Ng at victor.ng@oln-law.com or our associate Ms. Barbara Kwong at barbara.kwong@oln-law.com for further assistance.

July 2021

Disclaimer: This article is for reference only. Nothing herein shall be construed as Hong Kong legal advice or any legal advice for that matter to any person. Oldham, Li & Nie shall not be held liable for any loss and/or damage incurred by any person acting as a result of the materials contained in this article.