3
LA 6/393/1
Reference..
In reply, the Hong Kong Government stated there had been no change in the position during the period under review (ie 1.7.66-30.6.68.) but in the report on Convention No. 84 for 1.7.68 to 30.6.70. which has still to be examined by the Committee of Experts it was stated that:
"Article 2
A draft bill to amend the Trade Union Registration Ordinance has been prepared. The amending legislation, among other things, seeks to make it clear that no person shall be refused membership of a trade union solely on the ground that he is casually or seasonally employed in the trade, industry or occupation with which the trade union is directly concerned. With reference to the direct request of the Committee of Experts made in March 1969 to be kept informed concerning the progress of this legislation, the Committee will wish to know that consultations on the draft bill have been initiated with the Labour Advisory Board and other interested organisations.
?
K
5. From the foregoing it would appear that the present difficulty over the wording of the proposed amendment to Section 17(1) by the addition of Sub-paragraph (c) could have been avoided if the suggestion of the Committee of Experts that the words "or otherwise" be added after "habitually" had been adopted. It is of course a point for legal interpretation but it is difficult to see how "or otherwise" when used to qualify "habitually", could mean anything but "irregularly" ie casually or seasonally. It was, after all, only the meaning of "habitually" which was being questioned by the Committee of Experts. It is fairly common in colonial laws to find such words as "actually engaged in the trade, etc" and these do not appear to have been questioned although
To make the intention is the same as in Hong Kong. casual or seasonal workers the subject of separate provision seems to me to give them an undue importance which is bound to attract attention and suggest that their position is suspect. whatever form of words is used it would seem preferable that there should be one compre- hensive definition of those eligible for membership rather than to single out various categories. In practice, I imagine, the position is that where there is freedom of choice for the worker in regard to union membership, the very occasional worker in the trade would not consider it worthwhile to pay the dues?
Mlubwan
12 January 1971
M. Swan
(Miss)
OLA's Department
3