Γ
12
WEDNESDAY, JULY 3, 1974
H
+1 WOULD EMPHASISE THAT THE BILL LAYS DOWN MINIMUM STANDARDS ONLY, AND MY HOPE IS THAT EMPLOYERS WHO HAVE BEEN MORE GENEROUS THAN ITS PROVISIONS WILL CONTINUE TO BE SO, AND THAT OTHERS WILL ALSO BE INCLINED IN THIS DIRECTION,+ MR. WILLIAMS SAID,
+FOR THEM AND THEIR EMPOLYEES, LEGISLATION SHOULD PROVIDE A YARDSTICK WHICH COULD ALSO BE USED AS A BASIS FOR NEGOTIATION.+
MR. WILLIAMS SAID THE PROPOSED RATE OF SEVERANCE PAY WAS DETERMINED AFTER CAREFULLY CONSIDERING THE NEED TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE RELIEF TO THE REDUNDANT WORKER AT A RATE WHICH WOULD NOT OVER-STRAIN A SMALLER EMPLOYER. IF SMALLER EMPLOYERS WERE UNABLE TO MEET THEIR COMMITMENTS THEY WOULD BE DRIVEN OUT OF BUSINESS, THEREBY CREATING FURTHER REDUNDANCY AND DEFEATING THE OBJECT OF LEGISLATION.
THE POSSIBILITY OF LIMITING THE PROVISIONS OF THE LEGISLATION TO THE INDUSTRIAL SECTOR OR OF EXCLUDING SMALL EMPLOYERS WITH LESS THAN 20 EMPLOYEES HAD ALSO BEEN CONSIDERED. +SUCH LIMITATIONS, HOWEVER, PRESENT SERIOUS ENFORCEMENT PROBLEMS WITH BORDERLINE CASES,+ HE SAID.
+AND, IN ANY EVENT, IT DID NOT SEEM REASONABLE TO DETERMINE AN EMPLOYEE'S BASIC ENTITLEMENT TO RELIEF BENEFITS BY REFERENCE TO THE SIZE OR NATURE OF HIS EMPLOYER'S BUSINESS.
4
+ IT WAS THEREFORE CONCLUDED THAT THE SOCIAL ADVANTAGES OF APPLYING THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION ACROSS THE BOARD TO ALL EMPLOYERS WERE OF SUFFICIENT IMPORTANCE TO OUTWEIGH THE RISKS OF IMPOSING TOO ONEROUS A BURDEN ON A LIMITED NUMBER OF SMALLER EMPLOYERS.+
MR. WILLIAMS ALSO SAID THAT BECAUSE A NUMBER OF HONG KONG FIRMS PROVIDED LONG-SERVICE GRATUITIES OR REDUNDANCY PROVISIONS UNDER THE IR TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT, THE GOVERNMENT HAD CONCLUDED THAT SEVERANCE PAY SHOULD BE ALTERNATIVE AND NOT ADDITIONAL TO SUCH SCHEMES, ALLOWING EMPLOYEES TO CHOOSE WHICHEVER WAS THE MORE BENEFICIAL TO THEM.
+SEVERANCE PAY IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT, AND NOT TO OPERATE AS A BONUS WHERE SUCH PROTECTION IS ALREADY AVAILABLE,+ HE SAID.
MR. WILLIAMS SAID THE QUALIFYING PERIOD OF TWO
YEAR'S CONTINUOUS SERVICE HAD BEEN DECIDED ON BECAUSE IT WAS ONLY AFTER SUCH A PERIOD THAT THE EMPLOYMENT COULD BE REGARDED AS BEING IN ANY WAY PERMANENT.
J
/HE SAID,
+