*************************
Following is a question by Hon Emily Lau and a written reply by the Secretary for Labour and Welfare, Mr Matthew Cheung Kin-chung, in the Legislative Council today (April 15):
Question:
Under the Employment Ordinance (Cap. 57), an employee who has been employed by his employer under a continuous contract for a period of one month or more immediately preceding a sickness day shall be paid by his employer sickness allowance in accordance with such Ordinance, but an employee who takes less than four consecutive days as sickness days shall not be entitled to be paid sickness allowance in respect thereof. The rate of sickness allowance is set at 80% of the employee's average daily wages. In this connection, will the Executive Authorities inform this Council:
(1) of the number of complaints they received in each of the past three years in relation to sickness days and sickness allowance, as well as the details of such complaints;
(2) whether they know the current number of employers who do not pay sickness allowance to those employees who have taken less than four consecutive days as sickness days, and the rate of the allowance they pay to eligible employees barely meets the minimum statutory requirement; whether they received in the past three years complaints from employees that the aforesaid requirements were outdated and mean; and
(3) given that the authorities have not amended the Employment Ordinance to adjust the rate of sickness allowance since 1996, whether they will amend the Ordinance with a view to raising the rate of sickness allowance to a level equivalent to 100% of the average daily wages of the employee concerned, as well as repeal the provision under which employees taking less than four consecutive days as sickness days shall not be entitled to such allowance; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
Reply :
President,
My reply to the questions of Hon Emily Lau is as follows:
(1) In 2012, 2013 and 2014, the number of claim cases related to sickness allowance handled by the Labour Department was 67, 95 and 80 respectively. These cases usually involved computation or payment of sickness allowance, or disputes on longer or frequent sick leave taken or submission of medical certificates by employees. The majority of these cases were resolved by mutual consent between the employers and employees after Labour Department's conciliation. Disputes that could not be settled through conciliation were referred to the Labour Tribunal or the Minor Employment Claims Adjudication Board for adjudication.
(2) Under the Employment Ordinance (EO), an employee is entitled to sickness allowance equivalent to four-fifths of the employee's average daily wages if he or she takes not less than four consecutive days of sick leave and fulfils other statutory requirements (e.g. sufficient number of paid sickness days accumulated).
Some employees may consider the current legislative provision setting the trigger point of sickness allowance at four days as inadequate. At the same time, some employers are of the view that, unlike temporary incapacity resulting from work-related injury, an employee's absence from work because of sickness or injury is not necessarily employment-related and therefore the loss of earnings during an employee's illness should not be borne solely by the employer.
The EO only sets out the minimum standards of rights and benefits under the law. The Government always encourages individual employers, having regard to their own business operations and affordability, to offer employment benefits above the statutory standards to their employees. The Labour Department does not have statistics on employers granting sickness allowance just in accordance with the statutory requirements. Given the improved socio-economic conditions and the tight manpower situation in Hong Kong, we believe that more employers are now willing to offer employment conditions, including, inter alia, sickness allowance, that are more favourable than those provided under the EO.
(3) An employee's absence from work owing to illness is not necessarily employment-related. In apportioning the financial liability arising from an employee's illness, there is a need to maintain a reasonable balance between the interests of employers and employees. Unlike statutory leave that all employees are entitled to take and should enjoy full pay during the leave irrespective of their individual personal needs (e.g. statutory holiday and annual leave), sick leave is incidental to certain employees taken on account of their own physical conditions or personal needs. It is not considered that the statutory sickness allowance should be paid at full rate, mirroring the arrangement applicable for the statutory holidays and annual leave. Given that sickness allowance is payable for sick leave taken for four consecutive days or more, the present provisions have served to provide suitable protection to employees if they need to take a longer period of sick leave.
Since the introduction of sickness allowance in the EO, the Labour Department has from time to time reviewed the relevant provisions. A number of improvement measures have been implemented, including significantly increasing the maximum number of paid sickness days that can be accumulated from 24 initially to the present level of 120 days; and increasing the rate of sickness allowance from one half to the present level of four-fifths of an employee's average daily wages. The medical professionals recognised under the EO for certifying an employee's incapability to work in consequence of sickness or injury have also been extended from registered medical practitioners to cover also registered dentists and registered Chinese medicine practitioners, thus affording employees the freedom to choose the suitable treatment in respect of their sickness or injury.
Our EO requirement for a period of not less than four consecutive days of sick leave is comparable to the requirement applicable in other places such as the United Kingdom, France, Japan and Taiwan. The current rate of sickness allowance in Hong Kong is no less favourable than some neighbouring or developed economies like Taiwan, Japan and France in which sickness benefits are provided at around 50% to 66% of the employee's wages.
Having regard to the socio-economic development of Hong Kong, the current provisions under the EO on sickness allowance have struck a reasonable balance between the interests of employees and employers. At this stage, the Government has no plan to make amendments to such provisions but will continue to review the labour legislation from time to time.
Ends/Wednesday, April 15, 2015
Issued at HKT 13:22
NNNN
