Scorecard
Not sure if I understand your question or even if it's directed at me, however, I am referring to paragraph 4 of today's missive. It refers to the Terminations (Note 1) being for perceived participation in union activities and the ruling reaffirms that union activity in the workplace is in contravention of the Hong Kong Employment Ordinance.
It's either very clumsily worded or for someone not as well read in this case as you (being most of the work force) it could be construed as a continuation of the "they were troublemakers" argument. Just goes to show no lessons have been learnt.
Note 1. CCD seem to have missed out the adjectives wrongful and/or unlawful when describing the terminations. I am sure it is a mere oversight and will be amended in due course.
PS. CCD also say that wrongful dismissal applied to 17 out of the 18. To the not so well read, it would be fair to assume that one deserved to be dismisssed. They of cousre fail to mention that George Crofts succeeded in the UK Courts with his unfair dismissal claim and was therefore not able to persue the matter in HK. But then again, to admit 2 Judges had ruled unfair dismissal doesn't really "spin right" does it?
Last edited by Liam Gallagher; 12th Nov 2009 at 09:48.