Mrs. L. M. Jeger, MP.
4
3rd November, 1967.
a person works for three months and gives notice, after six months he is free to contract at a higher rate. The employer still will lose 75% of the cost of bringing him over. The employee loses his right to be repatriated at the expense of the employer. The major purpose of the
Ordinance is defeated.
The Commonwealth Office appear to ignore the fact that the Ordinance does not empower the Commissioner to insist on such terms! whether or not he 'thinks the worker should be well advised to press'.
Para. 3(u). I fail to see the purpose of quoting Articles 13
presumably from Convention 64., since it is no Contradi of
way concerned with the question raised, and Employ mient
covers mainly clause (9) of the 'model' contract. (Indigenous workers) difficulty and need not enter into argument over
Therefore we can ignore 'more fundamental Convention, 1939.
(1).
Clause deliked from 30.9.60. Ajon FEB 299/401/01,
as
from
>
(2).
this:
On 23rd June, 1966., an employee wrote to the Ministry of Labour requesting them to act under clause (19) of her 'model' contract.
In answer to this the Ministry replied on 2nd August, stating that they were unable to act under clause (19). Enquiries brought the information that 7(a), 14(c), 17 and 19., would not be subject to Ministry of Labour action at the request of the employee. They had not been consulted, if they they would have rejected them because of their conflict with regulations.
We contacted the Commonwealth Office and spoke to the person responsible for advising the Commissioner on the Ordinance, and asked for his opinion about the Ministry of Labour view. He expressed surprised (in 1966) that the Ordin- ance was being applied to the U. K., he referred to the Commissioner's visit before the Ordinance
But
See a
his ow
nof
Legal Adviser opinion aE/4
But die
is most relevant!
foul thi deal hallo rep aliation obligation of Amployer
Seemy minute
DK
Cont'd/....