bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

articlePageQuery

filter

article

articleBaseAdvertisingInfoArticle

articleListArticle

articleSeoArticle

hooksArticleAcknowledgementGateOverlayArticle

hooksTrackPageViewArticle

hooksContentInterestArticle

articleLinkingDataContent

hooksAmpRedirectArticle

articleSchemaContent

liveArticle

advertZone

sentiment

contentLock

topics

types

sections

paywallTypes

createdDate

publishedDate

urlAlias

moreOnThisArticles

sponsorType

commentCount

authorLocations

authors

corrections

displaySlideShow

multimediaEmbed

printHeadline

seriesContainer

articleSpeeches

socialHeadline

headline

images

flag

firstTopic

glossary

flattenTypeIds

image

relatedLinks

relatedNewsletters

__typename

sponsor

pdfFiles

seriesReverseOrder

series

disableOffPlatformContent

published

updatedDate

summary

subHeadline

body

keywords

readingTime

customTimezone

liveContents

A curious thing happened during the aftermath of the story about shopkeepers asking their landlord for a reduction in rents.

 Local leader writers and columnists, usually a riot of variegated opinion on any subject less predictable than the virtues of motherhood, found themselves in unaccustomed agreement.

 Yes, they cried with one voice, it is a shame that shopkeepers are losing money and there is no harm in them asking.

 But, the harmonious chorus continued, a contract is a contract.

 If the landlord proves unwilling, the shopkeepers have to struggle on with their old terms of tenure.

 Writers affecting a theological turn of phrase even opined that a contract is 'sacred'. Obviously, they do not read the football pages.

 Still, the general drift was clear. A lease was a contract, binding on both parties. Just as a landlord, finding his tenant making millions out of a space let for a paltry fee, must grit his teeth until the end of the lease's term, so a tenant in hard times must yield his pound of flesh unless, as Portia in The Merchant Of Venice put it, 'mercy seasons justice'.

 This is a respectable view. It is a fine and worthy tradition that a gentleman's word is his bond, that having made an agreement we stick to it through good times and bad. No doubt sensible landlords will try to be sympathetic.

 This enthusiasm for the sanctity of contracts came irresistibly to mind again when reading a long feature which appeared at about the same time, concerning the activities of the Labour Tribunal.

 This was a closely observed and carefully researched piece. I do not doubt that, like everyone else who has ever written on this topic, the writer was rewarded with a small trickle of letters and faxes relating cases in which one or other participant had been left extremely dissatisfied.

 Everyone who has been in Hong Kong for a while has heard a Labour Tribunal horror story. It is a common feature of court cases that one participant - or even both - is dissatisfied with the outcome so we must not read too much into this.

 But there were two points of tribunal procedure which sat most oddly with the notion that contracts are sacred. One concerns the question of the absent litigant.

 If the tenant in your shop stops paying his rent you can apply to, I suppose, the District Court to have him pay up or move out or both. You have to notify him that you are doing this.

 When the great day comes, if he fails to turn up at all, he loses. The court will proceed to grant you the relief sought. This is not to be confused, of course, with instances where he puts up a lawyer who asks for a delay in the hearing. But if he ignores the whole thing you get an open goal, as it were.

 This is not the way it works in the Labour Tribunal, apparently. If your employer suddenly stops paying you, you will find that he owes you money. Employers do not pay in advance, and if you are no longer working for him the question of severance pay arises.

 Go to the Labour Tribunal for your cash, though, and you will find that the tribunal will not deal with the matter unless your employer is there. If he does not turn up, you cannot get your money. Indeed you cannot get a decision of any kind.

 The tribunal's collective view, apparently, is that its role is to mediate in disputes, not to enforce contracts. If your errant employer does show up, the next thing that happens is that you are sent outside to agree a compromise.

 What of the possibility that the right is entirely on your side and you are entitled to every penny claimed? In practice, this is not considered. You are in effect expected to split the difference.

 The possibilities for abuse are obvious. An unscrupulous employer can simply ignore the whole business, in the hope that after a while you will lose interest, emigrate, or get a job from which regular absences to attend court are not practical.

 If the employer does turn up he can wave a few fanciful counterclaims so that 'splitting the difference' means paying you very little.

 This is a curious situation. If I agree to sell you my house, and then change my mind, you can take me to court and the court will compel me to comply with the agreement.

 If I agree to sell you my labour, though, the court supplied to resolve infringements will not enforce the agreement.

 It will tell us to go outside and have a little cuddle.

 Is it any wonder that employment contracts are often treated as so much waste paper? 



Toothless tribunal leaves labours lost