Duties at home for the elderly leave him living 'like a bird in its cage', court hears A welfare worker who is regularly on call overnight is asking a court to clarify whether his duties are covered by the Civil Service Regulations. Leung Kam-keung's on-call duties at a Tsing Yi home for the elderly had left him living 'like a bird in its cage', his lawyer told the Court of First Instance yesterday. Government counsel Daniel Wan said that if Mr Leung's family lived in a cage, it was 'a pretty good cage. It has got a TV and a mahjong set'. The court heard Mr Leung's staff quarters were on a floor above two floors housing the home's residents. If any of them needed him overnight, an alarm would sound in his room. Mr Leung's counsel, Chong Kai-man, told the judge, Recorder Ronny Wong Fook-hum SC, that his ruling would resolve whether or not his client could leave his quarters to go for a walk or dine with friends while he was on call. It would also settle whether Mr Leung was entitled to time off as compensation for being confined to the 'four corners of his staff quarters whilst performing 'on-call' duty', or to overtime payments. Mr Leung's case follows a similar, unsuccessful action by 3,522 prison officers, who sought $2 billion in overtime payments for being on call overnight. Mr Justice Michael Hartmann dismissed their claim last February, ruling that their pay package had been inflated to take account of the demands placed on them. Mr Chong said since 1998, welfare workers had been required to be on call at least two nights a week - duties for which they received no overtime pay, time off or other relief. He said welfare workers were like any other civil servants who, as a rule, were required to work only 44 hours a week. The 'on-call duty' now performed by his client was relatively new and as such, the practical restrictions it produced had not been properly thought through, Mr Chong said. 'Between 11pm and 8am, welfare workers are pinned to their staff quarters,' he said. '[Mr Leung's] freedom can only be exercised within the four corners of his staff quarters. It is submitted that the close analogy is 'a bird in its cage'. Has it any freedom?' He said Mr Leung's job description was to liaise with welfare agencies to serve the home's occupants, making him 'nothing more than a caretaker of an old people's home'. His client was effectively occupying a 'watchman's post' and waiting for the alarm bell to ring. Mr Wan, the counsel representing the director of housing, said this case could not be compared with that of the prison officers. 'The only relevant inquiry for the court is whether as a matter of contract, Mr Leung's performance of 'on-call duty' is regarded as 'on-call duty' under Civil Service Regulations,' he said. Mr Wan said the court's interpretation of the regulations would have implications for all civil servants. Mr Recorder Wong reserved his decision.