11 Short-Term Contracts in 3 Years to Dodge MPF: Employer Fined HK$30,000

In November 2011, an MPFA member-protection inspector fresh from receiving the 2011 Ombudsman Award summed up four years of inspection experience: employers most often dodged MPF contributions through “consecutive contracts of under 60 days” and “bogus self-employment”. These MPF default-contribution tricks may look clever — they are illegal.

Can employers dodge MPF contributions with short-term contracts?

No. The law exempts employees employed under 60 days, but chaining sub-60-day contracts to evade the duty is unlawful. Investigators look at contract continuity and whether it is the same employer: one employer signed 11 contracts with a 60-year-old guard over three years and was fined HK$30,000.

MPF employer obligations: the case

A 60-year-old guard went to the Labour Department over wage compensation; staff questioned why his employer had made no MPF contributions in three years and referred the case to the MPFA. Investigators found the employer had signed 11 contracts of 50-plus days each, convincing the guard no contributions were due. Because the guard could produce every contract from hiring to departure — showing continuity with the same employer — the MPFA secured a conviction, a HK$30,000 fine and recovery of the arrears, and used the case to claim MPF for other similarly contracted guards at the same company.

“High industry turnover” is no excuse

The inspector said security-industry employers often cite “high mobility” to justify endless sub-60-day contracts, but continuity is what matters. Bogus self-employment — labelling employees as self-employed — is another common dodge the MPFA pursues. Employees should keep contracts, payslips and similar records to protect their rights.