< Back
Recruitment of Workers

Recruitment of Workers

A site supervisor employed by a construction company was assigned to recruit workers and supervise their work at a construction site.  The site supervisor asked 10 workers to pay $150 to $250 per day to him as “introduction fees” in return for referring the workers to work at the construction site.  Being informed that this was a trade practice to pay “introduction fees” and believing that they would not get the jobs if they did not do so, the workers reluctantly acceded to the site supervisor’s request.  Over a year, the site supervisor received a total of $200,000 “introduction fees” from the workers, without the knowledge and permission of the construction company.

Offences Committed

The site supervisor was the employee and hence agent of the construction company.  He solicited and accepted advantages (i.e. the “introduction fees”) from the workers for referring them to work at the construction site, which was related to the affairs of the construction company (i.e. his principal).  In the absence of the principal’s permission to solicit and accept advantages, he had contravened Section 9(1) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (Cap. 201) (POBO).  As a result, the site supervisor was sentenced to imprisonment and ordered to pay $200,000 as restitution to the construction company.  The workers who paid the “introduction fees” had also contravened Section 9(2) of the POBO, for offering advantages to an agent of the company.

Case in Perspective

Under the POBO, both the giver and receiver of bribes commit an offence.  In addition, trade practice or custom could not be an excuse for soliciting, offering or accepting bribes.  

In the above case, the site supervisory staff breached the trust placed on him by his employer in the recruitment of workers and abused his powers for personal gains.  This rendered himself liable to criminal liabilities, damaged the reputation of the construction company and the industry as a whole, and might even undermine the quality and safety of the works, particularly if incompetent workers were recruited for the works only because they were willing to pay the “introduction fees”.  

To prevent their staff/employees and agents from falling prey to corruption in the recruitment of workers and hence ensure the quality and safety of works, construction companies should put in place adequate corruption prevention safeguards in recruitment of workers.  Examples of safeguards include –

(a) Prohibit staff/employees or agents, through staff code of conduct or employment contracts, from soliciting and accepting advantages in relation to their work particularly in the recruitment of workers;

(b) Enhance the transparency of payment of wages to workers (e.g. adopting written employment contracts and clearly specifying the wages therein) and put in place control measures in the procedures for recruitment of workers;

(c) Arrange payment of introduction/handling fee, if applicable and payable to the staff/agents, directly to the staff/agents responsible for recruitment of workers; and

(d) Remind staff/employees, agents and workers to be vigilant and report suspected corruption to the ICAC immediately.


MOST POPULAR