In a recent landmark decision, the Macau Intermediate Court has overturned the dismissal of a casino dealer who was terminated last year after intervening in a dispute involving an unlicensed gaming junket agent. The court has imposed a fine of MOP$7,500 (US$933) on the casino operator and mandated compensation of MOP$250,000 (US$31,100) to the former dealer. This case highlights the legal complexities surrounding employment disputes within Macau’s casino industry and underscores the principles governing lawful termination.
Background of the Dispute
The incident at the heart of this case unfolded in August of the previous year. During a shift at the casino, the dealer observed an unlicensed female who was not placing any bets, but was persistently harassing and offering betting advice to a male customer who was actively placing bets. Recognizing the potential breach of casino regulations and suspecting that the woman was an unlicensed junket agent, the dealer advised the male customer to safeguard his belongings.
This intervention was met with a complaint from the woman, who alleged that the dealer had been rude. The casino manager intervened in the ensuing altercation but noted that the dealer continued to argue with the woman despite instructions to the contrary. Subsequently, the casino terminated the dealer’s employment, citing poor service attitude, dishonesty, failure to adhere to work procedures, and the detrimental impact on the company’s operation and reputation.
The Legal Proceedings
Following the dismissal, the dealer lodged a formal complaint with the Labour Affairs Bureau. Initially, the casino was charged with a minor violation of the Labour Law. However, the Court of First Instance deemed the charges unsubstantiated. The dealer’s case was then represented in an appeal by the Public Prosecutor’s Office before the Intermediate Court.
The Intermediate Court’s recent ruling has overturned the previous findings. The court concluded that the dealer’s actions were undertaken in good faith, aimed at maintaining order within the casino, and ultimately served the employer’s interests. The court emphasized that dismissal should be a measure of last resort and should only occur in the presence of serious facts or circumstances, as stipulated by law.
Good Faith and Purpose of Action
The court found that the dealer’s intervention was a genuine attempt to address an issue that could affect the casino’s operations. The dealer’s actions were deemed to be in the interest of maintaining order and preventing potential disruption, rather than being a serious violation of workplace conduct.
Proportionality of Dismissal
The court emphasized that termination of employment should not be the first response to issues arising in the workplace. The decision to dismiss should be proportionate to the nature and severity of the employee’s conduct. In this case, the dealer’s behavior did not meet the threshold of a serious violation that would justify dismissal.
Lack of Evidence of Serious Damage
There was no substantial evidence presented that demonstrated the dealer’s conduct had caused significant harm to the company. The court noted that the level of the dealer’s behavior did not warrant such a drastic response as termination.
Emphasis on Fairness and Procedure
The court reiterated that fair procedure must be followed in employment matters, and any action taken should be aligned with the principles of fairness and legal standards.
Precedent for Employment Disputes
The case sets a precedent for how employment disputes, particularly those involving dismissal, should be handled. It reinforces the necessity for employers to follow fair procedures and only resort to dismissal in cases of severe misconduct.
Regulatory Compliance
Casinos and other gaming operators must ensure compliance with both labor laws and gaming regulations. This case highlights the importance of addressing and documenting workplace issues appropriately to avoid legal complications.
Employee Rights
The decision underscores the protection of employee rights within the workplace, particularly in scenarios where employees act in good faith and in the interest of maintaining operational integrity.
The Macau Intermediate Court’s decision to overturn the casino’s dismissal of the dealer and impose a financial penalty serves as a crucial reminder of the legal standards governing employment termination. The court’s emphasis on proportionality, good faith, and fair procedure provides clear guidance for employers in managing workplace issues and disputes. As the casino industry navigates these legal and regulatory landscapes, adherence to established principles of fairness and compliance remains paramount.