Hong Kong Employment Law Round-Up

Easter Monday added as statutory holiday

Starting 1 January 2026, Easter Monday (falling on 6 April this year) has been added as a statutory holiday under the Employment Ordinance (Cap. 57).

The Trade Unions (Amendment) Ordinance 2025, effective 5 January 2026, enhances the regulatory regime under the Trade Unions Ordinance (Cap. 332) by expanding the Registrar of Trade Unions’ powers to ensure robust oversight and safeguard national security.

The amendments introduce clearer governance standards for union registration and leadership eligibility, reinforcing transparency and regulatory integrity.

A “continuous contract” of employment is a statutory concept under the Employment Ordinance (Cap. 57) to determine whether an employee qualifies for additional statutory benefits such as paid annual leave, sickness allowance, severance payments, long service payments, etc.

Up until the amendment, in order to satisfy the “continuous contract” requirement, employees had to be employed with the same employer working 18 hours a week for 4 or more consecutive weeks (418 Rule).

Effective 18 January 2026, the 418 Rule has been amended to a 417/468 rule, which means that an employee will be regarded as being employed under a “continuous contract” if employed by the same employer for 4 consecutive weeks or more and if the following conditions are met:

·       The employee has worked for at least 17 hours each week (417 Rule); or

·       where the employee has worked <17 hours in any week, the total hours worked in that week plus the 3 preceding weeks is 68 hours or more (468 Rule).

The revised 417/468 Rule broadens the eligibility for statutory benefits, ensuring fairer protection to part-time and casual employees.

Employment Ordinance (Cap. 57)

The Court of Final Appeal (CFA) handed down a landmark judgment in Sir Elly Kadoorie & Sons Limited v Samantha Jane Bradley [2026] HKCFA 2 ruling that where an employee is subjected to harassment by another person (whether a co‑worker, a former co‑worker, or even a third party) in the course of their employment, and where the harassment is, in substance, directed at the employer, the employer has standing to seek injunctive relief to put an end to such harassing conduct, notwithstanding its lack of a cause of action in tort.

See our case summary for more details.

To mitigate legal and operational risks, employers should consider pre‑emptive measures to stop harmful conduct before it escalates into a breach of the employer’s duty to provide a safe working environment, whether in physical offices or remote settings.