****************************************************
In response to the media enquiries about the sentence on the wage offences committed by Mr Ip Ka-po, a director of Asia Television Limited (ATV), a spokesman for the Labour Department (LD) today (December 3) gave the following reply:
As to the wage offences committed by ATV, LD laid 102 summonses against ATV, for its being an employer, failing to comply with sections 23 and 25 of the Employment Ordinance (EO). ATV pleaded guilty to all the summonses and was fined $1,070,000 by the court earlier, which is an all-time-high fine. In corollary, LD laid another 102 summonses under section 64B of the EO against a director of ATV. He was convicted of 100 summonses after trial and was fined $150,000 yesterday (December 2).
LD took out investigation promptly upon learning ATV's non-payment of September wages in early October 2014. LD's labour inspectors paid over 20 visits to ATV employees at their work premises, took surveillance actions, interviewed both the management and employees, collected evidence and inspected wage payment and employment records. Having completed investigation and sought legal advice from the Department of Justice, LD laid a total of 102 summonses each against ATV and its director for late payment of wages for July 2014 to January 2015 in four batches on December 31, 2014; January 27, March 12 and March 30, 2015 respectively.
Section 23 of the EO specifies that wages shall become due on the expiry of the last day of the wage period and shall be paid as soon as is practicable but in any case not later than seven days thereafter. Section 25 of the same ordinance stipulates that where a contract of employment is terminated, any sum due to the employee shall be paid to him as soon as is practicable and in any case not later than seven days after the day of termination. Any employer who wilfully and without reasonable excuse contravenes section 23 or 25 commits an offence. According to section 64B of the EO, if the wage offences are committed with the consent, connivance or neglect of the directors, managers or other similar officers of corporate bodies, these responsible persons will be liable for the like offences.
LD does not tolerate any responsible persons, i.e. directors, managers or other similar officers of corporate bodies breaching wage offences wilfully. The department will spare no effort in enforcing section 64B of the EO. In deciding whether to take out prosecution against the responsible persons of corporate bodies, LD will examine their role in management, their authority to make decisions, and more importantly, whether the wage offences are committed with their consent, connivance or neglect. It is revealed in some cases that the court will primarily consider whether the defendants are the decision-makers with management role in corporate bodies. If there is sufficient evidence, LD will take out prosecution against the responsible persons of corporate bodies.
Unlike offences in which evidence could be collected on site by public officers, LD relies on the statements and evidence provided by the party whose statutory rights are being or have been infringed upon when considering whether there is sufficient evidence to instigate prosecution for breaches of the EO. Moreover, the name of employees who were subject to late payment of wages must be stated clearly on the summonses issued under the EO. If the affected employee refuses to act as prosecution witness, the prospect of convicting the concerned employer who defies the law would be slim.
Ends/Thursday, December 3, 2015
Issued at HKT 21:22
NNNN
