A
Mrs. L. M. Jeger, MP.
#1
3rd November, 1967.
under the terms of his contract refuse to take the permit post and the only redress the employer could claim one month's wages in lieu of notice, and such a person would be given other work on request.
Mr. Gunter dismisses this as incorrect, his reason for doing so is apparent for he claims 'Oriental Domestics have not furnished us with details of specific cases'.
Η
In our reply we informed Mr. Gunter of the dates, details had in fact been furnished to the Ministry of Labour.
0-
I therefore fail to conceive the purpose behind the Common- wealth Office misquoting information that even ten months ago was incorrect. A picture could be obtained by referring to the correct- ion made at that time, whilst an even clearer one could be given by presenting the facts as they are today.
We have offered and contracted positions for a total of thirty- six employees from the Colony. Twelve or thirty-three percent have not fulfilled their obligations, and of this figure, two offered a settle- ment to their employer.
By threatening to leave, several were able to obtain wage increases. One quartet managed to secure a total of eleven increases, until the Wage Freeze prevented the employer despite his application to the Prices and Incomes Board from paying further increases. Three walked out and one served his term of one month's notice. The cost to the employer was £800.
We have letters stating that the Commissioner refused to attest contracts submitted on behalf of this employer, instead he demanded the 'model' to be presented which he attested.
The period of terminating the contract to three months I agree, will prevent people from walking out and offering money in lieu.
If
But see
(11)
DHR
Cont'd/...