A group of casino workers from the Macau-based gaming operator SJM Holdings Ltd on Friday met with the city’s Labour Affairs Bureau to complain about the company’s human resources policies, media reports say.
The workers, led by labour activist group Forefront of the Macao Gaming, are complaining against restrictions on sick leave. They claim, according to reports, that the gaming operator only accepts medical certificates from selected doctors and clinics.
They also demanded salary increases to all casino floor staff.
This is the latest move advanced by the Forefront of the Macao Gaming against SJM Holdings to demand better pay and promotion policies for the company’s workers. The group on August 30 promoted a work-to-rule protest at the company’s flagship casino hotel, the Grand Lisboa (pictured). Forefront of the Macao Gaming claimed more than 1,000 employees joined. The figure included about 600 workers collectively taking sick leave.
The grouping last month organised a demonstration outside the human resources offices of SJM Holdings to protest against the company’s pay and promotion policies.
One day before the work-to-rule protest, SJM Holdings announced living subsidy increases for its staff starting from next year.
The gaming operator said it would award its employees annual subsidies equal to either 1.5 months or two months of their monthly salary. The measure will be effective until 2020.
One of the demands of the Forefront of the Macao Gaming was for staff to receive 14 months of pay per calendar year.
The labour activist group has organised several worker protests on the streets since July on issues linked to pay and conditions in the Macau casino industry. A march targeting all six casino operators took place last month. The group estimated that about 7,000 people participated in the demonstration, although police put the attendance at around 1,400 people.
Other outdoor demonstrations organised by the labour activists have also focused on individual gaming operators – not only SJM Holdings but also against Sands China Ltd and against Galaxy Entertainment Group Ltd.
