2017年2月28日
資訊洞見
Businesses in Hong Kong are currently facing an unparalleled crisis resulting from the recent outbreak of the COVID-19. The effect of the pandemic is not only disrupting many organisations’ daily operations but it also wreaking havoc on the long term prospects of their businesses.
We highlight some of the key legal issues which organisations may wish to consider to develop an effective crisis management plan.
Employment risks
Can an employer require employees to work remotely because of the COVID-19?
Under the Occupational Safety and Health Ordinance, an employer has to ensure that the workplace, so far as reasonably practicable, is safe and without risks to health.
Given that employers have an obligation to provide a safe workplace for their employees, they should implement policies to safeguard the workplace against the risk of the COVID-19. With many employees working closely together in the workplace, it may pose a risk to those employees most at risk of serious infection, e.g., pregnant women, people with compromised immune systems or individuals with chronic medical conditions. It would be prudent for employers to implement plans for their employees to work remotely, wherever practicable.
An employer who fails to provide a safe working environment for employees commits an offence.
If work-from-home is offered, employers should ensure that their existing insurance policy covers injuries arising out of or in the course of the employee’s employment under a remote working scenario.
Is an employer required to pay wages to an employee who is quarantined by reason of COVID-19?
If an employee is required or ordered by a Health Officer to be placed under quarantine, he/she will be issued a medical certificate with the statement of “under medical surveillance” or “mandatory quarantine”. In such event, the Labour Department encourages employers to grant paid leave to such employee.
What if an employee has contracted COVID-19?
In the case where an employee has contracted the COVID-19, his/her employer should grant him/her sick leave in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Employment Ordinance and the terms of the employment contract. Employers should not dismiss their employees who have been infected and are entitled to paid sickness allowance. Otherwise, an employer may be liable to prosecution and, upon conviction, to pay a fine of $100,000.
Can an employer request an employee to take no pay leave?
There is no provision under the Employment Ordinance for an employer to request an employee to take no pay leave.
During a time of crisis, if employees are required to take no pay leave due to the needs of the business, employers should endeavour to obtain the prior consent of their employees before implementing any no pay leave or wage reduction measures, so as to avoid a breach of the employment contract.
Can an employer dismiss an employee by way of redundancy etc. during a crisis?
There could be situations where an employee is terminated because a business ceases operations or has to downsize.
Under the Employment Ordinance, an employee is taken to be dismissed on the grounds of redundancy if the employer has ceased or intends to cease his business in the place where the employee was employed, or if the requirement of the business for the employee to carry out work of a particular kind, or for the employee to carry out work of a particular kind in the place where the employee was employed, ceases or diminishes or is expected to cease or diminish. In those situations, an employer will be required to pay a statutory severance payment to an employee who is eligible.
Furthermore, there are a number of statutory restrictions on the termination of employment contracts. Where those circumstances apply, it would, except for the circumstances described under the Employment Ordinance, be unlawful for an employer to dismiss an employee, regardless of the employer’s intention to cease operations or downsize. The circumstances include an employee who is pregnant; on paid sick leave; giving evidence or information in any proceedings in connection with the enforcement of the Employment Ordinance, or suffering from a work-related injury. Employers who terminate an employee under these circumstances are liable to prosecution and, upon conviction, to pay a fine of $100,000.
Upon termination of an employee, employers must make the termination payments (except for severance payment), to the dismissed employee as soon as practicable and in any case not later than seven days after the date of termination or expiry of the contract. For severance payment, payment must be made not later than two months from the receipt of a notice from an employee claiming for severance payment. An employer who fails to pay the termination payments when they become due is liable to prosecution and, upon conviction, to pay a fine of $350,000 and imprisonment for three years.
In addition to terminal payments and compensation, employees who are unreasonably or unlawfully dismissed may claim reinstatement or re-engagement. If successful, the Labour Tribunal may make an order for reinstatement or re-engagement or an award of terminal payments and/or compensation not exceeding $150,000.
If an employee is dismissed due to redundancy, should an employer pay an employee both the severance payment and the long service payment?
An employee who is dismissed by reason of redundancy is eligible for severance payment only and is not eligible for long service payment.
Currently, an employer can offset the statutory severance payment that an employee is entitled against the accrued benefits derived from the employer’s contributions to the mandatory provident fund scheme or the occupational retirement scheme. However, the off-setting mechanism may be abolished in the near future.
Contractual risks
Commercial activities are often regulated by contracts that define the rights and obligations of the parties. The outbreak of COVID-19 has resulted in many businesses that are finding it difficult to perform their contracts, or cope with default by others.
In case businesses are seriously impacted by the COVID-19, it is worth reviewing the contracts to ascertain if there are any provisions which provide for epidemic or pandemic situations. It is not uncommon that force majeure clauses are incorporated in a contract, which set out how the contract should be performed in case of interruption by unforeseeable and uncontrollable events. It may provide for suspension or even termination of the contract if the force majeure lasts for a significant period of time. Businesses should assess the risks involved, and be clear about what kind of remedies and reliefs are available. In any event, parties should seek legal advice before invoking these provisions, or if the counterparty invokes such provisions. Even if a contract does not expressly include a force majeure clause, the common law doctrine of frustration may be relevant to your circumstances and should be considered.
For more information on contractual risks, please see our recent client alerts – “HKSAR: Legal Implications of the New Coronavirus-Covid-19” and “Novel Coronavirus: How the construction industry can manage the impact of the outbreak on projects”.
In the context of a commercial lease, if due to financial crisis an organisation wishes to downsize or cease its business operations, can it terminate its tenancy/lease before the expiration of the term?
A tenant is contractually bound by the terms of the lease. Therefore, the tenant cannot unilaterally terminate the lease before its expiry unless it contains a break clause.
Commercial leases in Hong Kong are generally in favour of landlords. They do not usually contain a break clause allowing the tenant to terminate the lease before the expiration of the lease term. In addition, there are usually provisions in commercial leases which prohibit alienation. Alienation refers to provisions in leases which govern the tenant’s ability to assign, sublet, change control and change business name. These restrictions will apply unless the tenant has obtained the landlord’s prior consent.
In the absence of a break clause or right to alienate, the only option available to a tenant who wants to end a lease before the expiration of the term is to offer to surrender the lease to the landlord on mutually acceptable terms.
The landlord is free to accept or reject the tenant’s offer. If the tenant breaks the lease without the landlord’s consent, then the consequence of a breach follows. The landlord would be entitled to claim damages against the tenant, which includes the following:
Data privacy and confidentiality risks
Following the announcement by the Hong Kong Government of work-from-home arrangements for civil servants, more and more companies are giving their employees the option to work from home. Technological advancements have made it possible for employees to have remote access to office files and client information from their personal computers at home, and employees are no longer confined to the walls of an office space. Yet, there could be legal consequences for transmission of significant business data, proprietary information and confidential information for this new working option such as implications under a non-disclosure or confidentiality agreement. In addition, there are also security, privacy and confidentiality issues involved with remote access to the company’s IT infrastructure, personal computers, and other communication devices. Companies who allow employees to work from home should therefore consider the implications of confidentiality and data protection principles under the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance, as well as cybersecurity issues. IT policies should be implemented, revised or enhanced, as the case may be, to deploy protection measures before employees are allowed to access the company’s internal network.
For more information, please see our recent client alert – “Coronavirus pandemic: Extra precautions needed for data protection and cybersecurity?”
Tax – efficient solutions
Asset structuring is an important element of risk mitigation. Deacons can provide tax-efficient solutions for the restructuring of assets, including shares and immovable property, and businesses outside of Hong Kong for clients who wish to spend more time abroad or simply want to spread their jurisdictional risk. For those who see Hong Kong as a safe haven in challenging times, Deacons is also experienced in inbound redomiciliation to assist clients in moving the undertaking, assets, and personal and family lives to Hong Kong.
香港各企业机构现正面对近期因COVID-19疫情爆发而引致，实属无可比拟的危机。疫情大流行的影响力不仅扰乱许多企业机构的日常运作，亦对其业务的长远前景造成沉重打击。
本行谨就企业机构在制定有效的危机管理计划时或可加以考虑的一些主要法律问题作重点提述。
雇佣风险
雇主可否因COVID-19疫情而要求雇员以遥距方式工作？
根据《职业安全及健康条例》，雇主须在合理地切实可行范围内，确保工作场所是安全及不会危害健康的。
鉴于雇主有责任为其雇员提供安全的工作场所，因此雇主应实施保障工作场所的政策，以防止COVID-19疫情传播的风险。若众多雇员聚集在工作场所内一同密切地工作，可能对那些容易受严重感染的高危雇员(例如：孕妇、免疫力受损人士或有长期病患者)构成风险。为审慎起见，雇主应在可行范围内实行让雇员以遥距方式工作的计划。
雇主如没有为雇员提供安全的工作环境，即属犯罪。
若容许雇员在家工作，雇主应确保其现有保险单的保障范围涵盖雇员因工或在受雇工作期间，在以遥距方式工作的情况下产生的损伤。
雇主是否须向因COVID-19疫情而接受检疫的雇员支付工资？
如雇员被卫生主任要求或命令接受检疫，将获发给注明“须接受医学监察”或“强制检疫”的医生证明书。在上述情况下，劳工处呼吁雇主让雇员放取有薪假期。
如雇员感染COVID-19应如何处理？
如果雇员感染COVID-19，其雇主应根据《雇佣条例》的相关条文及雇佣合约的条款给予该雇员病假。雇主不应解雇已染病并有权获得疾病津贴的雇员。否则雇主可被检控，一经定罪，可被处罚款100,000港元。
雇主可否要求雇员放取无薪假期？
就雇主要求雇员放取无薪假期而言，《雇佣条例》并无作出任何规定。
在疫情危机期间，如雇主因业务需要，而须要求雇员放取无薪假期，雇主应尽力在事先取得雇员同意下，才实行任何放取无薪假期或减薪措拖，以免违反雇佣合约。
雇主可否在疫情危机期间，以裁员等方式解雇雇员？
雇员有可能在雇主停止经营业务或须要缩减人手的情况下被解雇。
根据《雇佣条例》，如果雇主已停止或拟停止经营在雇员受雇工作地点从事的业务；或者如果该业务对雇用雇员从事某类工作的需求，或该业务对雇用雇员在其受雇工作地点从事某类工作的需求停止或缩减，或预期会停止或缩减，则雇员须视为因裁员而遭解雇。在上述情况下，雇主须向合资格的雇员支付法定遣散费。
此外，有关终止雇佣合约设有多项法定限制，在有关情况适用时，除在《雇佣条例》下所述的情况外，雇主解雇雇员即属违法，无论雇主是拟停止经营或缩减人手。上述有关情况包括，雇员当时正在怀孕、放取有薪病假、在就执行《雇佣条例》而进行的法律程序中提供证据或资料，或因工受伤。雇主在该等情况下解雇雇员可被检控，一经定罪，可被处罚款100,000港元。
在终止雇用某雇员后，除遣散费外，雇主必须在切实可行的情况下尽快向该名被解雇雇员支付所有终止合约款项，而在任何情况下，雇主必须在合约终止或届满日期后的七天内支付有关款项。就遣散费而言，雇主必须在接获雇员所发出申索遣散费的通知起计两个月内支付遣散费。雇主如不依时支付终止雇佣合约的款项给雇员，可被检控，一经定罪，可被处罚款350,000港元及监禁三年。
除终止雇佣金及补偿金外，遭不合理或不合法解雇的雇员，还可提出复职或再次聘用的申索。若申索成功的话，劳资审裁处可作出复职或再次聘用的命令，或者判给终止雇佣金及/或不超过150,000港元的补偿金。
如雇员因裁员而遭解雇，雇主应否向雇员同时支付遣散费及长期服务金？
如雇员因裁员而遭解雇，则只可享有遣散费，而不可获得长期服务金。
现时，雇主可使用雇主向强制性公积金计划或职业退休计划支付的供款所产生的累算权益，抵销雇员可享有的法定遣散费。然而，此项对冲安排或会在不久的将来被废除。
合约风险
商业活动经常受界定各方权利及义务的合约所规管。COVID-19疫情爆发导致许多企业机构感到难以履行其合约或应对他人违约的情况。
如果企业受到COVID-19的严重影响，则有必要审视合同，以确定是否有针对流行病或大流行情况的规定。合同中加入不可抗力条款的情况并不罕见，这些条款规定了在不能预见并不可控制的情况下合同应如何履行。如果不可抗力持续很长一段时间，合同可以规定暂停甚至终止。企业机构应评估所涉及的风险，并清楚有哪些补救措施和救济措施。无论如何，当事方在援引这些规定之前，或当对方援引这些规定时，应寻求法律咨询。即使合同没有明确包含不可抗力条款，普通法中的受挫原则也可能与您的情况有关，应予以考虑。
如欲了解有关合约风险的更多资料，请参阅本行近期的客户资讯 –“HKSAR: Legal Implications of the New Coronavirus-Covid-19” 及 “新型冠状病毒：建造业如何管理疫情对工程项目的影响”。
就商业租约而言，企业机构如因财务危机而有意缩减人手或停止其业务运作，该企业机构可否在租期届满之前终止其租赁/租约？
租客在合约上须受租约条款所约束。因此，除非租约包含提早中断租期条款，否则租客不能在租约届满之前单方面终止租约。
香港的商业租约一般对业主有利，通常并不包含容许租客在租期届满之前终止租约的中断租期条款。此外，商业租约中经常订有禁止转让条文。转让权是指租约中规限租客能否转让、分租、更改控制权及更改商业名称的条文。除非租客已取得业主事先同意，否则此等限制将告适用。
在没有中断租期条款或转让权的情况下，对有意在租期届满之前结束租约的租客而言，唯一的可行方法是选择按双方均接受的条款向业主提出退回租赁。
业主有自由选择接受或拒绝租客所提出的退回租赁。如果租客在未经业主同意下中断租约，则会继而产生违约的后果。业主将有权针对租客申索损害赔偿，当中包括下列各项：
资料数据私隐及保密风险
继香港政府公布公务员的在家工作安排后，越来越多公司均容许雇员选择在家工作。科技进步发展使雇员能够从其家中的个人电脑以遥距方式接达办公室档案及客户资料，雇员不再局限于在办公室空间范围之内工作。然而，因选择此种新的工作模式而传输重大业务数据、专有资料及机密资料可能会产生法律后果，例如：在不披露或保密协议下所带来的影响。此外，以遥距方式接达公司的资讯科技基础设施、个人电脑及其他通讯装置亦存在涉及保安、私隐及保密等问题。因此，容许雇员在家工作的公司应考虑对保密构成的影响及在《个人资料(私隐)条例》下的保障资料原则，以及网络安全问题。在容许雇员接达公司的内部网络之前，雇主应实施、修订或优化(视属何情况而定)其资讯科技政策，以便部署保障措施。
如欲了解更多资料，请参阅本行近期的客户资讯 – “新型冠状病毒全球大流行：是否需要对数据保护和网络安全采取额外预防措施？”
具税务效益的解决方案
资产结构是风险缓解的重要元素。的近律师行可为有意投放更多时间于海外或只想分散其地区性风险的客户提供具税务效益的解决方案，以便重组其在香港境外的资产(包括股份及不动产)及业务。若客户将香港视作在充满挑战时刻的安全港，的近律师行亦具备丰富的迁册来港经验，可协助其将业务、资产，以至个人与家庭生活融入香港。
