217-day absence leads to dismissal and failed appeal over retirement benefits

A technician employed by the Labour Affairs Bureau (DSAL), who accumulated 217 consecutive days of unjustified absences between September 5, 2016, and April 9, 2017, had pursued a legal battle after his dismissal and subsequent appeals relating to his retirement pension.

While the technician was in Canada with his family, he notified his superior that he did not wish to return to Macau and requested dismissal along with authorization to receive his retirement pension.

In March 2017, the then-Secretary for Economy and Finance formally ordered the technician’s dismissal due to the prolonged unauthorized absence.

Unhappy with the decision, the technician initially lodged an appeal with the Court of Final Appeal (TUI), but this appeal was ultimately dismissed. Years later, in March 2024, he petitioned then-Chief Executive Ho Iat Seng for reinstatement and to convert the dismissal penalty into compulsory retirement.

According to a statement from the TUI on August 13, 2025, the then-Secretary for Economy and Finance, Lei Wai Nong, agreed to reinstate the technician, citing his compliance with legal good conduct requirements and the timeliness of the request within the five-year limit since dismissal.

However, the request to convert the dismissal into compulsory retirement was ultimately rejected on the grounds that the technician’s unauthorized absences were intended to secure pension benefits improperly.

The court stated that approving the conversion would reward misconduct, undermining the “reputation and morale of the Public Administration and Statute of Public Administration Workers of Macau.”

The technician appealed the denial to the Court of Second Instance (TSI), which upheld the refusal. He then escalated the appeal once more to the TUI.

The courts clarified that the Secretary for Economy and Finance’s refusal does not constitute confiscation or expropriation of pension funds, as these deductions are managed by an autonomous entity separate from the government’s budget.

Ultimately, the TUI dismissed the appeal, affirming that the dismissal penalty stands and the technician will not receive compulsory retirement benefits.