Darcy Davison-Roberts, Yu Yiran and Li Jiawei
Hong Kong Law Journal, Vol. 56, Part 1 of 2026, pp.21 - 54
Abstract: This paper critically examines Hong Kong’s continuous contract requirement under the Employment Ordinance (Cap 57), which conditions eligibility for employment benefits and protections on meeting prescribed minimum hours over a four-week period. This threshold, known as the 4–18 Rule, requires at least 18 hours of work per week for the same employer over four consecutive weeks. In June 2025, the Legislative Council enacted the Employment (Amendment) Ordinance 2025, which replaced the 4–18 Rule with a dual threshold from 18 January 2026. Under the amendment, employees may qualify as being continuously employed by either working 17 hours of work per week over consecutive four weeks or a cumulative total of 68 hours within the same period (the 4–17–68 Rule). Drawing on qualitative legal analysis and empirical data, this paper argues that the 4–18 Rule creates a situation of employment precarity, disproportionately affects women, and facilitates employer-driven scheduling strategies that exclude workers from key statutory protections and benefits. Judicial interpretation remains constrained, with courts unable to remedy employer avoidance in the absence of statutory reform. This paper further argues that the 4–17–68 Rule reform constitutes only a numerical adjustment and fails to address the structural, legal, and institutional roots of exclusion that characterise the 4–18 Rule. Drawing on international models, particularly from Singapore, Australia, and the UK, the paper advocates for substantive legislative amendments, including anti-avoidance provisions and a proportional entitlement system. Without these, the revised 4–17–68 Rule will preserve, rather than remedy, systemic precarity and gender inequality in statutory employment benefits and protections.
No comments:
Post a Comment