Reference...
(v) In attesting contracts, as required by the
legislation, the Commissioner of Labour must on the one hand satisfy himself that it meets the requirements of the legislation; he cannot on the other hand impose requirements on either of the parties that are in excess of the legal requirements by refusing to attest unless they are included.
(vi) Hong Kong may have a good case for these provisions. But prima facie they ought not to be attesting contracts containing a Clause 14(b) which does not meet the requirements of the legislation;
and they
do not appear to be entitled to insist (if they are so doing), as a pre-requisite to attestation, that the contract contains a clause 14(c) in the terms drafted in the model, since this goes beyond the require- ments of the legislation. Of course, it is open to Hong Kong to argue in the case of this latter clause that they do not insist on it but include it in the model as something for which the worker would be well advised to press. If this is the case, then the status of the clause as drafted ought to be clearly explained to employers; on the information available
to us it is not.
This may be the point that Mr. Burn is trying to make at Z on page 2 of his letter. But if so he does not raise it in precise terms (although his legal adviser has questioned the validity of Clause 14(c) ) and we need not refer to it in our reply. I propose, however, to raise it with the Governor and if the outcome indicates that perhaps we ought to offer some further explanation to Mr. Burn then the Minister could write again to Mrs. Jeger.
6.
Flag A
April, 1968
b..
Carter
(W. S. Carter)