|
PRESS STATEMENT |
The incident reported last Monday, when a group of imported workers from China were refused entry and detained by Hong Kong Immigration Department officials as they attempted to return to Hong Kong after a weekend visit to their families on the mainland, has caused considerable concern among local labour organizations. As a result of this unease, I have been requested, as Secretary for the Hong Kong Association of Trade Unions (HKATU), to issue the following statement on this incident.
The 54 workers involved were all employed by Lucky Construction Company (HK) Ltd. on two-year contracts. On the evening of 30 January they travelled from Hong Kong to Guangzhou. As they attempted to cross back to Hong Kong from Lo Wu on the evening of 31 January, they were prevented from doing so by Hong Kong Immigration officials. Nine of the workers were held for almost ten hours before being released and allowed to enter Hong Kong. A spokesman for the Immigration Department, Mr Chan Kwok-yin, reported to the HKATU that his department had been informed by Lucky Construction that the workers' employment contracts had been terminated. This information had been duly recorded on Immigration Department computers and officials were thus left with no option but to refuse the men re-entry and to treat them as possible illegal immigrants.
Eight weeks ago all 160 mainland workers employed by the company went on strike because they were angry that up to 75% of their wages was being deducted to cover the cost of food, accommodation and 'agency fees'. These fees were being paid monthly to an employment agency in Guanzhou, but the workers argued that such payments were not authorized. They had been assured by the agency that only a single payment would be made and claimed that their contracts had been altered once they arrived in Hong Kong. With the assistance of the Labour Department and the HKATU, the men were subsequently repaid up to $50 thousand each in back pay.
Workers argue that the incident at Lowu was an attempt by Lucky Construction to intimidate them. They claim that ten of the dismissed employees were leaders of the earlier strike and that the dismissals were a warning to the rest of the workforce not to cause trouble. They also say that none of the workers had been informed of the dismissals and had left most of their clothes and money in Hong Kong when they visited China.
A representative of the company, Mr So Ho-fai, claims that the workers' accusations are not true. The decision to end some employees' contracts was necessary because the project they were working on was nearing completion and fewer workers were required to finish it. He stressed there was no connection between the dismissals and the earlier strike. He has, however, been unable to say why the workers involved were not warned of their dismissal prior to leaving Hong Kong.
Although the company has agreed to re-employ the workers, the HKATU is convinced that the sackings were intended as a warning to the workers - nothing short of intimidation, in fact. Therefore, we recommend that the Labour Department set up a coordinated method of monitoring all temporary contracts for imported workers in order to ensure that similar incidents do not recur in Hong Kong.