Labor rights Court rejects appeal filed by company over employment certificate

The Court of Second Instance (TSI) has rejected an appeal filed by a local company over the issuing of work certificates to two former employees who had previously been summarily dismissed. The firm was seeking to include the reasons behind the summary dismissal of the two employees in their employment certificates, but the court found that employers do not hold the right to include “whichever information they feel like in a work certificate.”
The case dates back to October 2009, the month of the two employees’ dismissal. Their employer had caught them “deducting cargo items without the company’s consent.” In addition, the company had raised suspicions that the two employees were also improperly handling invoice procedures.
As these actions may amount to felonies, the company filed a complaint with the Judiciary Police.
The employees notified the Labor Affairs Bureau (DSAL) that they would neither sign nor accept the work certificates, given that the employer included information about their summary dismissal.
In 2010, DSAL requested that the company re-draft the two work certificates or issue an appeal. The company presented DSAL with a new version of the employment certificates, although they still stated that, “the employees were summarily dismissed for violating employees’ general rules.”
The employees notified DSAL, yet again stating that they would not sign the work certificates. DSAL then issued the company a MOP10,000 fine for violating the Labor Relations Law. According to Macau’s law, upon dismissal, the employee is entitled to request his/her former employer to issue an employment certificate, which should include the company and employee’s names, the job position held and the duration of the employment contract, as well as a detailed job description.
Following the issuing of a MOP10,000 fine, the company filed an appeal first with DSAL and later in court. Both appeals were rejected.
The company further appealed to TSI. In a recent ruling, the court rejected the appeal, stating that an employment certificate should only provide details on the company and employee’s names, as well as duration of employment contract and job description. “This means that, in an employment certificate, the employer cannot include details – as it wishes – if they were not required by the employee,” the court said.
Furthermore, the court stated that the employee is seen as “the weaker party” and therefore an employment certificate is issued in his/her interest to help him/her find another job. CP