僱員被迫辭職是否構成解僱？上訴得直

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：王曉秋 v 救世軍港澳軍區 - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：張舉能法官 - 判決日期：2005年8月22日 ### 案情摘要 申索人受聘於被告人為護士。2004年6月及7月，申索人被指工作失職，被告人管理層決定將其解僱。申索人曾表示若被告人不接納其解釋而決定解僱，希望以辭職方式離職，以免影響日後求職。2004年8月19日，被告人決定解僱申索人，但亦同意接受其即時辭職。8月26日，被告人向申索人出示即時解僱信，申索人遂寫下即時離職辭職信並當天離職。申索人其後向勞資審裁處追討代通知金 (wages in lieu of notice) 及遣散費 (severance payment) 或長期服務金 (long service payment)。勞資審裁處裁定被告人沒有充分理由即時解僱申索人，但認為雙方僱傭關係終結是因申索人自行即時辭職，故判申索人敗訴。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案核心法律爭議在於申索人的離職是出於真正的辭職，還是遭到被告人解僱或推定解僱 (constructive dismissal)。申索人認為其離職實質上是被告人即時解僱，應獲賠償。被告人則辯稱申索人是自動即時辭職，因此無須支付代通知金或遣散費/長期服務金。 ### 判決理由 法官認為，判斷僱員離職原因不能單看文件字眼或終止僱傭關係的形式，而必須實質地決定是誰真正終結了僱傭合約。根據勞資審裁處裁斷的事實，法官認為申索人的所謂自動即時辭職是迫於無奈。被告人已決定即時解僱申索人並準備了即時解僱信，只是按申索人意願接受其以自動即時辭職方式離職。這種情況下，自動辭職只是一種形式，實質上是被告人即時解僱了申索人。即使雙方主觀上相信僱主有理由即時解僱，也不影響實質上構成解僱的事實。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了 Caledonian Mining Co. Ltd 對 Bassett [1987] IRLR 165 及 Martin 對 MBS Fastenings (Glynwed) Distribution Ltd [1983] IRLR 198，強調判斷僱傭關係終結時應著重實質而非形式。此外，亦引用 East Sussex County Council 對 Walker (1972) 7 ITR 280 一案，說明當僱主表明不再需要僱員並邀請其辭職時，即使僱員遞交辭職信，實質上仍可被視為遭僱主解僱。 ### 裁決與命令 高等法院原訟法庭裁定上訴得直，撤銷勞資審裁處的命令。判決申索人勝訴，被告人須支付申索人港幣97,613.17元（包括代通知金港幣43,096元及遣散費/長期服務金港幣54,517.17元），並支付自2004年8月26日起計的利息及勞資審裁處的訟費。被告人亦須支付本上訴的訟費。 ### 判決啟示 本判決重申在判斷僱傭關係終止的性質時，法院會著重實質而非形式。即使僱員在被告知將被解僱後選擇以辭職方式離職，若其辭職是迫於無奈，仍可能被視為遭僱主解僱。這對僱主在處理員工離職時，特別是涉及失職指控的情況，具有重要啟示，需確保程序公正且實質上不構成不當解僱。 --- ### 免責聲明 本摘要由人工智能自動生成，內容可能存在錯誤或遺漏，僅供參考，不構成法律意見。如需法律建議，請諮詢合資格律師。### Case Details - Case Name: Wong Hiu Chau v The Salvation Army Hong Kong and Macau Command - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Hon Cheung J - Date of Judgment: 22 August 2005 ### Factual Background The claimant was employed by the respondent as a nurse. In June and July 2004, the claimant was accused of dereliction of duty. The respondent's management decided to dismiss her. The claimant had expressed that if her explanation was not accepted and dismissal was decided, she wished to resign to avoid affecting future job prospects. On August 19, 2004, the respondent decided to dismiss the claimant but also agreed to accept her immediate resignation. On August 26, the respondent presented a letter of summary dismissal to the claimant, who then wrote a letter of immediate resignation and left on the same day. The claimant subsequently sought wages in lieu of notice and severance payment/long service payment from the Labour Tribunal. The Labour Tribunal found that the respondent did not have sufficient grounds for summary dismissal but concluded that the employment relationship ended due to the claimant's own immediate resignation, thus ruling against the claimant. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal question in this case was whether the claimant's departure was a genuine resignation or a dismissal, or constructive dismissal, by the respondent. The claimant argued that her departure was effectively a summary dismissal by the respondent, entitling her to compensation. The respondent contended that the claimant voluntarily resigned immediately, and therefore, no wages in lieu of notice or severance/long service payment were due. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge held that determining the reason for an employee's departure requires looking beyond the wording of documents or the form of termination, and instead focusing on who genuinely ended the employment contract. Based on the facts found by the Labour Tribunal, the judge concluded that the claimant's so-called immediate resignation was made under duress. The respondent had already decided to summarily dismiss the claimant and had prepared a dismissal letter, only agreeing to accept her immediate resignation as per her prior wish. In such circumstances, the immediate resignation was merely a formality, and in substance, it constituted a summary dismissal by the respondent. Even if both parties subjectively believed the employer had grounds for summary dismissal, this would not alter the substantive fact of dismissal. ### Key Precedents & Statutes This case cited Caledonian Mining Co. Ltd v Bassett [1987] IRLR 165 and Martin v MBS Fastenings (Glynwed) Distribution Ltd [1983] IRLR 198, emphasizing that the substance, rather than the form, should govern the determination of employment termination. It also referred to East Sussex County Council v Walker (1972) 7 ITR 280, which held that if an employer informs an employee that they are no longer required and invites them to resign, even if the employee submits a resignation letter, it can still be considered a dismissal by the employer. ### Decision & Orders The Court of First Instance allowed the appeal and set aside the Labour Tribunal's order. The claimant prevailed, and the respondent was ordered to pay the claimant HK$97,613.17 (comprising HK$43,096 for wages in lieu of notice and HK$54,517.17 for severance/long service payment), plus interest from August 26, 2004, until full payment, and costs incurred in the Labour Tribunal. The respondent was also ordered to pay the costs of this appeal. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms that in determining the nature of employment termination, courts will prioritize substance over form. Even if an employee chooses to resign after being informed of impending dismissal, if the resignation is made under duress, it may still be considered a dismissal by the employer. This has significant implications for employers handling employee departures, especially those involving allegations of misconduct, emphasizing the need for fair procedures and ensuring that actions do not substantively constitute wrongful dismissal. --- ### Disclaimer This summary is AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for professional legal advice.