Plaintiff crew member concluded Crew Service Agreement with Defendant labor dispatching unit, agreeing that the labor dispatching unit would concluded the service agreement with Plaintiff as the ship dispatching agent of Defendant employer, and the labor dispatching unit would introduce Plaintiff to work on M.V. “OOCL BELGIUM” managed by the employer. Subsequently, Plaintiff concluded Crew Service Agreement with the owner of M.V. “OOCL BELGIUM” and the employer, as well as Collective Bargaining Agreement between the employer and “Sanhui” (which provided that the employer should comply with all the obligations set out in the terms and conditions of this agreement, including the disembarkation of the crew in any port due to sickness or injury, and continued to pay full wages and other obligations) should apply to Crew Employment Agreement. Due to knee pain, Plaintiff sought medical treatment in Quebec, Canada, and the doctor held that it could continue to perform his duties, but Plaintiff applied to the employer for medical treatment in China because the pain still did not improve. A few months later, Plaintiff concluded a Crew Employment Agreement with its employer and the owner of another ship, but shortly thereafter, Plaintiff applied for disembarkation due to leg discomfort and was deemed unfit to perform its duties. The employer paid sick pay to Plaintiff and the medical expenses and transportation expenses that had been incurred, but there were still some sick pay during the medical care period that was not paid, and the labor dispatching unit did not pay social security for Plaintiff, so Plaintiff filed an action before the court. The court held that (1) the labor dispatching unit did not have to bear the liability for compensation, because Crew Service Agreement concluded by the two parties stipulated that the labor dispatching unit was responsible for Plaintiff’s overseas work on board the ship and protected Plaintiff’s legal rights and interests during the ship’s work. Such a contract was a crew service contract and did not apply to the provisions of the Labor Contract Law. The Contract Law should apply to determine the rights and obligations of both parties. However, the agreement had no agreement on sick pay, and Plaintiff’s claim to the labor dispatch unit had no contract and legal basis. (2) The employer should pay sick pay during medical care according to the contract. According to the Labor Contract Law Article 2, the law applied to labor contracts between enterprises and other organizations within the territory of the People’s Republic of China and workers, because Defendant employer was a legal person in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China, the provisions of the Labor Contract Law were not applicable to Crew employment Agreement concluded between Defendant and Plaintiff. According to Collective Bargaining Agreement, it should bear all the responsibilities stipulated in the agreement, including the payment of crew wages.