The Labour Affairs Bureau (DSAL) has refuted speculation that the implementation of forced unpaid leave by local firms is a violation of employment law.
The DSAL’s comments were made in response to an earlier written inquiry by Lawmaker Sulu Sou, who questioned whether no-paid leave might have breached Article 10 (5) of the Macau Labour Relations Law, which prohibits an employer from lowering an employee’s base wages unless both reach a mutual agreement, confirmed in writing and notified to DSAL within 10 days.
“Unpaid leave basically alters the work duties and conditions stated in the employment contract, which in turn diminishes the originally promised pay [terms and conditions],” Sou challenged earlier.
However, DSAL contradicted Sou’s statement, arguing that the principle of unpaid leave differs from that of a salary reduction.
The decision to take unpaid leave is that reached “mutually” between the employer and staff.
Moreover, employees are not paid on the days they are on leave based on the fact that they do not carry out any business of the firm.
“As a result, the handling of [cases of unpaid leave] will differ accordingly,” DSAL clarified in the statement.
However, DSAL stressed that it is not acceptable for an employer to dismiss staff due to a failure to reach a mutual agreement on no-paid leave. In such circumstances, the employer is required to pay the staff member employment termination compensation.
According to official data, DSAL registered 214 cases related to salary reductions in 2020 involving 156 local enterprises and 2,450 workers.
No Comments