CONFIDENTIAL
Reference.
HK K 5/14 will
MR. KIMMAR, Hong Kong Dept. K.245
I think that we can give quite a short answer to these representations. I would suggest that a draft letter be put up for Mr. Godber's consideration, indicating that the representations made have been carefully considered but that the Secretary of State sees no reason to intervene. It can be pointed out that the Hong Kong Trade Union Registration (Amendment) Bill is being considered by the Labour Advisory Board on which both local trade unions and employers organisations are represented.
20
*
So far as the substance of Mr. English's complaint is concerned he seems to be of the impression that trade union law in Hong Kong should faithfully reflect U.K. law (erroneously referred to by him as English law). However our general policy has for many years been to approve, subject to the preservation of basic trade union rights, deviations from British law and practice designed to accord with local circumstances. Thus, for example, compulsory registration of trade unions (now being thought of here) has been a commonplace of Colonial trade union registration since 1930.
3.
As regards the specific point raised about the exclusion from trade union office of persons convicted of certain crimes, a number of Governments overseas have included, such a provision in their trade union legislation. If, in practice, the existing wording of Clause 12 (c) causes difficulties, then no doubt the Hong Kong Government will be ready to give consideration to amending the law.
4. The comments on clauses 23 and 24 have little substance. The existing law in this country in relation to picketing causes difficulties and there is considerable misunderstanding among workers about just what the law permits. Most lawyers would agree that the majority of the disgraceful scenes to be found outside strike-bound factories where some workers seek to continue with their employment, are illegal. Again, certain Governments overseas have laid down strike rules about picketing much tighter than the Hong Kong provisions which have worked effectively because they have been both clear and unequivocal. I would not criticize the Hong Kong Government, therefore, for seeking to clarify the law on picketing particularly the provision in Clause 23 which spells out that causing an obstruction is illegal.
5. Hong Kong, like ourselves, h..s had experience of what happens when there is doubt on this straight- forward point. The writer of the letter objects to the deletion from the Hong Kong law of the right to picket "the place where a worker resides". I think that this is a perfectly proper change in the law which I have recommended in a number
/of
CONFIDENTIAL