appConfigEntityId

bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

articlePageQuery

filter

article

articleBaseAdvertisingInfoArticle

articleListArticle

articleSeoArticle

hooksArticleAcknowledgementGateOverlayArticle

hooksTrackPageViewArticle

hooksContentInterestArticle

articleLinkingDataContent

hooksAmpRedirectArticle

articleSchemaContent

hooksArticlePageAdvertisementConfigArticle

liveArticle

appConfig

advertZone

sentiment

contentLock

topics

types

sections

paywallTypes

createdDate

publishedDate

sponsorType

urlAlias

moreOnThisArticles

sectionsV2

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

json

Patsy Moy

A Hong Kong-based airline came under fire from a High Court judge for 'snubbing the contractual spirit' by unilaterally cutting the salary of a pilot by 20 per cent. 
After its appeal was dismissed yesterday, Hong Kong Airlines said it would take the legal battle to the Court of Final Appeal.   
In his judgment,  Court of First Instance judge Mr Justice Pang Kin-kee  accused the airline of 'twisting the arguments' and 'snubbing the contractual spirit' because  the company had not obtained  written approval or any other form of consent from the pilot before it cut his monthly salary from HK$135,000 to HK$100,800 for the period between January and April of last year.  
The employment contract clearly stated that both sides were obliged to obtain  consent for any changes to employment terms, the judge said.
But the airline argued that it genuinely believed the pilot had accepted the pay cut, as he had made no objections to it during the four-month period of the  cut. The issue was officially raised  by  the pilot only when he was fired in May of last year. 
At the appeal hearing, barrister Shahmim Khattak,  for the airline, argued that  the company had honestly believed that the pilot had already accepted the  pay cut.
But  Pang disagreed. He said the company should not presume its workers had accepted  pay cuts simply because they did not react promptly. 
'I agree that the worker was not slow in response, as he brought it up with  the company a few months later,' the judge said.
The airline was fined HK$24,000 in Tsuen Wan Court  in January of this year for breach of the Employment Ordinance  over the outstanding salary due to the  pilot. 
The  court action was launched by the Labour Department after it received a complaint.
The Employment Ordinance states that wages due upon expiry of the last day of  a wage period or upon termination of employment shall be paid as soon as practicable, but not later than seven days. 
Any employer who fails to do so wilfully and without a reasonable excuse could face a maximum fine of HK$350,000 and imprisonment for three years, the department warned.



Airline ignored spirit of contract in cutting pilot's pay, High Court rules