Originally Posted by
Xwindldg
I agree it's good to get a win over the company but those NZ guys had the chance to sign over but they didn't and agreed to leave at 55 as per the original contract. Now they've been given permission to break that contract and it will probably f### anyone else wanting a base.
why people love to blame the victims?
who is the one breaking the law? who's to be blamed to break the law?
If there is a fault in the contract, why should one sign across to a new contract with diminished terms and conditions to suit the one creating the fault?
An employment contract is bounded to be a betterment or at least the same as per the requirement in the employment ordinance. If the signed contract is of any less than the employment ordinance, it is meant to be corrected. This is not breaking the contract.
Congratz to the guys in nz for winning the court case
and salute to them for standing up to fight for their own entitlement!
