The Case of "Remia" - Severance Pay for Domestic Workers

A domestic helper works for the same family for five years. She has a great working relationship with them, and when she is laid off due to the family's relocation, they write a good recommendation letter to a new employer. Yet, the family refuses to give severance pay as required by law -- and the relationship deteriorates when the worker seeks the intervention of the Labor Department.

Yesterday I went to the Labor Relations Department with "Remia" for the mandatory conciliation meeting between her and her former employer in this exact situation:

Undisputed Facts:
Remia has worked Hong Kong as a domestic worker for over twenty years and for this family for five years. In May 2008 her employer informed her that they would be leaving the country at the end of July and would no longer need her after June 1st. They paid her wages, paid her annual leave, and paid her airfare back to the Philippines. They gave her a termination letter, a letter stating that her employment will terminate on June 1st, and a release letter. The release letter described her work performance and provided a glowing review for other employers.

The Problem:
The family does not want to pay severance pay. According to Hong Kong employment law, persons employed for at least two years are entitled to severance pay if dismissed by reason of redundancy or if the employee is laid off. The amount is 2/3 of a month's pay per year of employment. Severance pay is given to all employees - including domestic workers.

The Case:
At the conciliation meeting yesterday the male employer denied that he owed severance pay and asserted that Remia resigned - she was not laid off. He asserts that as the signatory of the employment contract, he is the only one authorized to terminate the contract. Since his wife signed the termination notice, he claims it is invalid. Remia insists that both the husband and wife decided to terminate the contract, even it is only the wife's signature on the termination letter. The wife had always handled all aspects of the employment relationship (payment, supervision, etc), so it was no unusual that she would sign the letter.


According to Labor Law, an "employer" is anyone with direct managerial authority over an employer -- therefore, I believe the wife is able to terminate the contract. I believe the employer is not being truthful when he says he was unaware that the contract was terminated. He was home when it happened and he said goodbye to Remia and thanked her for her service. The termination letter and termination payments are written on family letterhead. Finally, it is logical that the family would not need to retain a helper because they moved into a serviced apartment last month -- likely this move is in anticipation of their departure from Hong Kong.

If the family still plans to leave the country next month, then they will not be present in Hong Kong to follow up on Remia's claim, and Hong Kong law has no authority to track them down outside of its borders. The employer denies that he is leaving, but Remia believes that that he still intends to leave at the end of the month.

I cannot understand why this employer has decided to approach his former domestic helper in this way. I spoke to him yesterday during the meeting and he agreed that he is offended that Remia has taken the matter to a judicial setting. "You should have come to me," he said. He seemed personally offended to be "dragged before the court" and his disdain and anger were evident yesterday.

Remia is clearly entitled to severance pay, and she is not making any outlandish or inappropriate claim. Yet, it will be very difficult for her to prevail. The employer may leave the country before the resolution. Additionally, I spoke to her new potential employer yesterday, who prefers not to hire Remia until the case concludes. So, although she has the right to persist, may lose her new job if she does not drop the case.