Seafarer seeks judicial review after HK$80,000 in MPF contributions confiscated

Seafarer Lam Kwai-wing has applied for judicial review, arguing that exclusion from the Employment Ordinance — and consequently the MPF Ordinance — left him powerless when his employer confiscated over HK$80,000 in employer contributions after dismissing him. [Case no: HCAL66/11]

What happened?

Lam had worked for Shun Tak-China Travel Ship Management Limited since 2000 and was dismissed last April. Previously an ORSO provident-fund member, he was moved to an MPF scheme when the company ended its ORSO plan in 2009; but the company said seafarers fall outside the Employment Ordinance and hence the MPF Ordinance, placing him in a voluntary-contribution scheme instead — with his past HK$80,000-plus in employer contributions transferred into it. After his dismissal last April, the company confiscated the sum.

What do the MPFA and Lam each argue?

The MPFA responded that seafarers are protected by the Merchant Shipping (Seamen) Ordinance, with neither the Employment nor MPF Ordinance applying — so the confiscation was lawful. Lam counters that Basic Law Article 36 guarantees the right to social welfare, and confiscated employer contributions leave his retirement benefits unprotected, violating the Basic Law; his barrister Kwok Sui-hei noted the seamen’s ordinance covers medical leave and similar benefits but says nothing about retirement. The MPFA said it would review the matter further.

What can workers learn from this case?

Knowing which law protects you is critical — employment status directly affects MPF rights. Anyone unsure about their coverage should ask the MPFA, and learn about what MPF protection covers and how MPF schemes operate.