over say over £200 (b) nevertheless if requested has to
to the worker the cost of repatriating the unwilling works
subject to a deduction for the period not served. Where
worker walks out or gives the appropriate notice he cannot
said to be "in default" within the meaning of section
5 (2) (k).
on
In an attempt to give fair protection to the would be
employer the Agency have presented contracts for atte
(see the contracts of Fung Lwan-Chin, Peng-Ya-l ieu. ha
Lin-Tai) in which they have proposed an amendment of clause
14 (b). This amendment has been rejected by the
author
and attestation of contracts SO amended has been refuse X
so acting the authorities are acting within their rights
and not acting ultra vires.
The suggested amendment is not very clear but
as
I understand it it seeks to impose an obligation on a worke
who, though not in default, has terminated the contract by
giving due notice or by walking out (subject to the liabil
to pay the prescribed amount in lieu of notice) to pay some
further sum which is not clearly defined but I assume refers
to the employer's outlay in transporting the worker to this
country; and further deprives the worker of his right to
receive the appropriate portion of the cost of repatriation.
To attempt to force this suggested amendment through
by an application to the Court in Hong Kong to grant
mandatory injunction would be fruitless.
To alleviate the position it seems to me that this
particular clause which seeks to give effect to section 5 (2)
(g) and (k) of the Ordinance should be referred to the
appropriate Ministry in this Country and to the representati
of the Hong Kong Authorities over here so that in the first
place the provisions of the ordinance may be modified
the model contract revised and agreed.