CODE 18-75
j
Reference..
The
alternative jurisdiction to the regular District Courts. In practice, because proceedings in the Labour Department were free, and even now are relatively cheap, the parties preferred submission to their jurisdic- tion. It was accepted in Hong Kong that this principle was probably unsound for application to Hong Kong, and in preliminary discussions in which I took part I readily conceded that the proposed new Labour Courts should come under the aegis of the judiciary, though I was anxious that they should be very close to the Labour Department. people of Hong Kong intensely dislike resort to the regular Courts, with the result that wage claims are only pursued in cases where the claimants are actuated by personal anomosity towards their employers or where a trade union sees an opportunity for propaganda. It was con- sidered essential to get away from the place and the atmosphere of the regular Court, and my suggested solution was to provide accommodation for the Labour Courts alongside labour offices, so that a claimant, having failed to obtain satisfaction through the Department's concili- ation service, could immediately lodge and pursue his claim through a Labour Court.
Point 4: It was intended that the Court should entertain only claims of right and decisions should be made only on legal merits. This was not to imply that the procedure should necessarily follow strict law of evidence. It was generally agreed that Labour Courts should be presided over by persons who could command the respect of both parties, and this would probably mean a legally qualified person. I must admit that I personally did not like the idea of assessors, though this is obviously attractive in theory. It would have been ☺ difficult enough in Hong Kong to find a panel of employers able and willing to give the necessary time; it would have been well nigh impossible to find trade-unionists of sufficient repute. I was inclined to believe that although the legislation might provide for the possibility of assessors, in practice the Courts should operate, at least in the first instance, without them. I think I am strengthened in this view since visiting Singapore and learning of the severe diffi- culties which the President of the Industrial Court faces in finding suitable members from the panels of employers and employees with which he is provided.
Point 5: I found no disagreement with the first part of this, and there were those, especially employers, who argued that there should be no legal representation in the proposed Labour Courts. It was my view that legal representation ought not to be formally refused, but should be made as difficult as reasonably possible. In my experience of Labour Courts in Malaysia and Singapore, it was rare for the parties to be legally represented, because it was not the practice to make any award of costs. Occasionally, an employer who retained a lawyer on a long-term basis might insist upon being represented, but we usually gave the claimant in such a case very considerable assistance in the presentation of his case, so that he was not prejudiced. I think it would be inviting criticism to prohibit qualified lawyers from repre- senting parties in the Labour Courts, better to discourage this
practice by such measures as making no awards of costs.
Points 6 & 7: There is no serious dispute about these views. The intention is that the claim should first be reported to the Labour Department's Labour Relations Officers, who would endeavour to promote a settlement by conciliation. If this failed, then, according to one view, the Latour Relations Officer should prepare a written statement of the claim and the defence, which would become the basis of the case in the Labour Court. I think this might work in many cases, though I believe that the Court should still hear the claimants and the defence if the parties so desired. But there should be provision for cases to be entertained, even though there had been no conciliation proceedings in the Labour Department, In these cases, the Court should probably itself receive the complaint and reduce it to writing in the form of a claim which could be put to the defendent and form the basis of the caso. I think it would be proferable that the procedure should not be spelt out in any detail, because this dould defeat the main object. It should be sufficient that the Courts exercise in procedural matters
S
/broad