the staff as new entrants. On the dockyard precedent we assume
that, while salaries might be adjusted to take account of past
experience and service with H.M.G., the staff would start at the
bottom so far as seniority was concerned.
6.
The H.P.B.W. say this is a different and unprecedented
situation. These are not true redundancies (as in the closure of the
dockyard). In this case the work remains to be done and is being
taken over by the Hong Kong Government and they should take over all
the staff who were doing this work. We understand them to be making
two points:-
7.
(a) this situation should be handled in the same way
as a transfer of staff between public authorities
in the U.K. where work is being transferred;
(b) all staff should be taken over by Hong Kong
Government in their proper grades and appropriate
seniority according to length of service with
H.M.G. Subsequently if, by process of reorganisa-
tion or nationalisation of the work, staff become
redundant then the most junior (whether ex-M.P.B.W.
or Hong Kong Government staff) should be laid off.
We must agree that the Kaval dockyard agreement is not
Nevertheless, the M.P.B.W. proposals are open
an exact precedent. Nevertheless,
to objection on a number of grounds:-
(a) the Hong Kong Government service is a distinct and
separate public service under another government.
It is a service which the Hong Kong Government
administers and pays for. (The Treasury would not
want it otherwise.);
(b) we are here dealing with unestablished staff who,
on moving from one public service to another, do so
on the basis that there is a clean break; they enter
the new service as new entrants.
The M.P.B.”.
/appear