HK lawyer sets out where performance management ends and legal risk begins
A new workplace survey in Hong Kong reported that 45% of millennials say they have “quiet quit” due to job dissatisfaction, and one in three (32%) have refused to go to the office when unhappy. This is in comparison with 21% of Gen Z and 18% of Gen X. Those gaps move boundary-setting from buzzword to operational reality for HR.
That reality shows up in day-to-day management, where there might be requests to take on “extras,” after-hours check-ins, or shifting KPIs. Where managers overcorrect, friction can escalate fast.
In Hong Kong, a heavy-handed response may carry legal exposure. Even without a general anti-retaliation statute, an aggressive reset, such as sudden surveillance, punitive rostering, and ad-hoc discipline, can amount to a breach of contract and trigger constructive dismissal claims.
To ground the discussion in law and process, HRD Asia spoke with Sacha Cheong, of counsel at K&L Gates in Hong Kong, on how to manage boundary-setting conduct without tipping into unlawful retaliation or breach of contract.
Cheong sees a post-pandemic reset in expectations, with more transactional attitudes and tensions when “extras” aren’t compensated or recognised.
“If left unaddressed, this unsurprisingly can result in an irretrievable breakdown in employment relations. Finding an equilibrium between the employer and employee’s interests is key to maintaining a healthy employment relationship.”
“In Hong Kong, there is no single, comprehensive law which explicitly prohibits retaliation in the employment context… These laws do not specifically speak to the type of retaliation an employee may face if they decided to ‘quiet quit’,” he adds.
He emphasises that while an employee would not be able to claim retaliation in this context, they may still be able to pursue other legal remedies such as constructive dismissal if it can be shown that the employer committed a serious breach of contract.
There is no standalone “anti-micromanagement” law. Day-to-day management largely turns on written terms and policies, with discrimination and sexual-harassment statutes forming the specific statutory guardrails.
“A carefully drafted employment contract can give the employer some flexibility to adjust an employee’s role or responsibilities as business needs evolve.”
Cheong also notes that “senior or specialised roles may involve working beyond standard hours, especially when needed to get the job done well.”
He cautions against overreach: “Even if the employment contract contains these terms, the employer should not abuse its position by taking unfair advantage of the employee.”
If tasks drift beyond scope, or are unsafe or unlawful, employees may refuse them. Persistent out-of-scope demands push risk toward constructive dismissal.
Start with the paperwork and a conversation. Check what the contract and policies actually require, and test whether there’s a skills or allocation fix before escalating.
“This is why it is so important to carefully draft the contract and policies... They set the tone and boundaries for the entire working relationship.”
If resolution fails, termination remains available, provided the process is tight.
In Hong Kong, an employer isn’t legally required to give a reason if it follows contractual terms or the Employment Ordinance; the High Court in Lam Siu Wai v Equal Opportunities Commission [2021] HKCFI 3092 confirmed that termination without cause can still be lawful if steps are observed.
Constructive dismissal requires a fundamental breach, no reasonable option but resignation, and a resignation because of that breach.
In this regard, delay can look like acceptance, but not every misstep qualifies.
“If micromanagement increases after an employee sets boundaries, it could be seen as a constructive dismissal... But it really depends on the facts of the case.”
Major, unilateral changes, e.g., substantially longer hours, clearly out-of-scope duties, or grossly unreasonable treatment, are the kinds of facts that move a claim forward.
Remedies typically mirror proper notice, but irrational handling can expand liability.
Cheong points to Williams v Jefferies Hong Kong Limited (HCA 320/2011) and Horkulak v Cantor Fitzgerald International [2003] IRLR 756 as cautionary examples where poor conduct drove significant awards.
Whether new reporting demands create exposure turns on the contract and policy framework.
Express terms allowing management of responsibilities and reporting lines strengthen the employer’s position.
“It is possible that the employee may argue that the employer has altered an established practice and that this constitutes a unilateral change in the terms of their employment. However, practically speaking, this type of argument is often difficult to prove and is unlikely to garner much sympathy from the courts.”
HR should document business rationale, apply changes consistently across comparable roles, and avoid measures that appear to be targeted at one individual.
Contemporaneous notes often decide disputes later.
Start with need, not frustration, Cheong advises.
“Start by looking at what the organisation needs and why the manager is making the request… From this, an assessment can be made as to whether the manager’s requests are justified and how those needs are best addressed as an organisation.”
Seek the employee’s perspective and consider re-allocation if someone else is better-suited.
“In general, the employer will be better protected against allegations of unlawful conduct if it can point to a genuine justification, and if the manager’s request goes no further than what is permissible under the employee’s terms of employment or company policies.”
Where escalation is needed, follow stated policy steps—consistently—and keep the scope reasonable and related to role.
That trail of proportionate decisions is your first defence.
Two patterns show up repeatedly: sidelining HR and rushing to terminate because local law makes it procedurally simple. Both raise avoidable risk.
“Although it is a natural inclination for a manager to want to manage the process from start to finish, it is prudent to alert HR to the issue and involve HR as early as possible… [HR] can form a ‘buffer’ between the manager and employee.”
Because termination is comparatively straightforward under Hong Kong law, some employers jump straight to it rather than address root causes, driving churn, cost, and morale damage that could have been avoided by early engagement.
Escalation is rarely the answer on its own, says Cheong.
The better play is to de-escalate early, anchor decisions in terms and policy, and document each step.
“The HR function should not be performed as if it is another tentacle of senior management’s control over the workforce, but rather it should be viewed as the bridge between managers and employees… The role of HR is to de-escalate the situation before it unravels and minimise the risk of legal exposure to the organisation.”
Done well, performance management around “quiet quitting” enforces standards without eroding trust.
With the trend now measured in Hong Kong, the safest path is a disciplined process—not reflex.
