The Macau Intermediate Court has ruled that the dismissal of a casino dealer last year for engaging in a dispute with an unlicensed gaming junket agent who was harassing a customer was unlawful. The casino operator in question has been fined MOP$7,500 (US$933) and ordered to pay the former dealer MOP$250,000 (US$31,100).
The incident took place in August of last year when the dealer, who was working, noticed a female who had not placed any bets harassing and offering betting advice to a male customer who was placing bets. The dealer suspected that the female was an unlicensed junket agent and immediately reminded the male customer to take care of his belongings.
In response, the woman complained that the dealer was rude to her. The casino manager then intervened but the dealer did not comply with the instruction and continued to argue with the woman in question.
The dealer was later dismissed, with the company claiming that an internal investigation had found their service attitude to be poor and dishonest, that they had not complied with work procedures, which had seriously affected the company’s operation and reputation, and that they would not be given any compensation after dismissal.
The dealer subsequently lodged a complaint with the Labour Affairs Bureau, and the company was charged with a minor violation of the Labour Law, but the Court of First Instance ruled that the charge was not substantiated. The Public Prosecutor’s Office represented the dealer in an appeal to the Intermediate Court.
The Intermediate Court has now determined that the dealer’s act of dissuading the female customer was in good faith, for the purpose of maintaining order on the premises, and fundamentally for the benefit of the employer, and did not rise to the level of being unable to continue the working relationship.
The court’s ruling noted, “It is emphasised that termination of the labour contract should be the last choice and should not be the first choice of the employer in dealing with the labour relationship in the absence of serious facts or circumstances as required by law.
“There was no evidence that the dealer’s behavior caused serious damage to the company. In terms of both the level and nature of the behavior, it did not reach the level of a serious violation.”
