Voiceofreason
That's the way I read it too.
We have in our COS a 3 month termination of contract clause. We also have a D&G procedure. The company used an ad hoc procedure to select the 49ers and then used the 3 month clause (only) to terminate their employment.
The original Judge said the company should have used the D&G provisions rather than the "Star Chamber" and consequently gave $150k and an additional months pay in lieu of the time to carry out the D&G. He then awarded $3.3 for Defamation.
The Appeals Court Judges disagreed and said the Company did not need to use the D&G and struck down the 1 months pay. The also wound the Defamation award back to $700k.
The Final Appeal Judges partially reversed the Appeal and said the company should have used D&G. However, I seem to recall that in a Pre-trial ruling it was ruled that the company can run the D&G, find you not guilty, then given you 3 months salary and show you the door. That is now the status quo.
They can, as you say, keep their mouths shut and just give you 3 months salary. However, in those circumstances they may be hearing from your lawyers. However, if they want to be bullet-proof, they can call you in, have the satisfaction of telling you that you are a prat, give you $150k plus 3 months plus a weeks salary in lieu of a "bodged" D&G. You cannot touch them, they have fulfilled all the requirements of HK Law.
Don't forget, we are employed under the same law as amahs, so we cannot expect to be treated any differently.
As a footnote. The Final Appeal Judges ruled that each side bear their own costs. I suspect that will be a huge blow to the 49'ers and their backers. The costs of these proceedings would have dwarfed the sums awarded. For the company, the costs are just another cost of doing business.
Last edited by Liam Gallagher; 27th Sep 2012 at 06:36.