Hong Kong court examines rights after sudden workplace departure
Hong Kong's High Court recently dealt with an employment dispute about notice periods and resignations. The case centered on whether a resignation email and subsequent conduct constituted immediate termination or maintained the standard notice period.
A centre manager sent a resignation email after her spouse's employment ended at the same company. She maintained that she had requested a waiver of her notice period multiple times, while the company interpreted her later actions - leaving company chat groups and absence from office - as signs of immediate resignation.
The case examined the interpretation of resignation notices and whether actions following a resignation notice affect its original meaning in employment contracts.
At a medical group called Life Young Medical Group Limited, the centre manager earned HK$51,500 monthly. Her contract required either party to give one month's notice or pay one month's salary in lieu when ending employment. The dispute arose in February 2022.
After the company terminated her spouse's employment as chief executive officer, she indicated she would leave. That evening at 10:38 pm, she sent an email stating: "As mentioned earlier, I hereby tender my resignation with immediate effect from 15 February 2022."
The Labour Tribunal found that while still at the office, she had verbally requested the company waive her notice period several times. The company disagreed, saying they first heard this request through WhatsApp messages later that night.
The Labour Tribunal stated: "[The employer] did not consider that when [the worker] resigned, she had the right to choose." This emphasised that when resigning, the worker had the right to choose between giving notice or making payment in lieu.
After sending her resignation, the centre manager left several company WhatsApp groups and didn't attend the office for two days. She later sent emails explaining she was working from home and seeking clarification about her notice period.
The medical group viewed her conduct as demonstrating an intention to resign immediately, particularly her exit from work communication groups and absence from the office.
The Labour Tribunal found: "[The worker] sent the 'resignation email' with an effective date from 15 February 2022, pending [the employer's] reply about mutually waiving the notice period."
The High Court upheld that reasonable people could differ in interpreting the events and circumstances. No single interpretation could be deemed the only reasonable conclusion.
The court emphasized that employment law follows contract law principles, requiring objective interpretation of intentions rather than subjective understanding.
The High Court noted that the interpretation depended on various factors, including both the centre manager's repeated requests for notice period waiver and the medical group's focus on her subsequent conduct.
The presiding officer concluded that while missing work for two days was improper, it didn't negate the worker's right to choose between serving notice or making payment in lieu.
The court ultimately dismissed the medical group's appeal, upholding the Labour Tribunal's decision in favor of the centre manager, confirming her entitlement to serve the notice period rather than pay salary in lieu.