J
WEDNESDAY, JULY 16, 1975
HE SAID MANY PEOPLE HAD READ DEEP AND SINISTER SIGNIFICANCE INTO THE FACT THAT THE BILL WAS BROUGHT FORWARD AT THIS TIME.
1.
BILL
SOME HAD SAID THE BILL WAS BEING +RUSHED THROUGH+ IN ANTICIPATION OF A MARKED DETERIORATION IN LABOUR RELATIONS- OTHERS THAT THERE WAS NO NEED FOR IT IN THE PRESENT CALM INDUSTRIAL CLIMATE.
→THE PLAIN AND SIMPLE FACT IS THAT THE NEED TO HAVE CERTAIN STATUTORY PROCEDURES HAS BEEN FORESEEN FOR SOME TIME PAST, AND WORK HAS PROCEEDED ON THE BILL FOR TWO YEARS OR SO, AND IT IS NOW READY FOR PRESENTATION, MR. HENDERSON SAID.
+ IF THERE IS URGENCY, IT IS ONLY THE GOVERNMENT'S DESIRE TO GET RID OF ARCHAIC LABOUR LEGISLATION SUCH AS THE ILLEGAL STRIKES AND LOCK-OUTS ORDINANCE.+
HE SAID MANY PEOPLE HAD SAID THEY FEARED THAT DELAYS IN PROCEEDINGS COULD ACT TO THE DETRIMENT OF WORKERS.
BUT DELAYING TACTICS WERE COMMON FROM BOTH SIDES IN DISPUTES, AND TIME LIMITS WOULD NOT BE BENEFICIAL AT LEAST IN SO FAR AS CONCILIATION PROCEDURES WERE CONCERNED.
IN FACT, IN THE COMMON +NON-UNION+ DISPUTE SITUATION IN HONG KONG, IT OFTEN TOOK QUITE SOME TIME TO IDENTIFY WORKERS' SPOKESMEN AND TO GET THEM TO TAKE PART IN THE CONCILIATION PROCESS.
THE ARBITRATION OR BOARD OF INQUIRY STEPS IN THE BILL WERE, HOWEVER, A DIFFERENT CASE, WHERE IT WOULD BE REASONABLE TO IMPOSE A TIME LIMIT IN RELATION TO. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DISPUTE AT THE TIME. THE BILL WOULD BE AMENDED TO ENABLE THE GOVERNOR-IN- - COUNCIL TO SET TIME LIMITS.
IT HAS ALSO BEEN URGED THAT THERE COULD BE CASES WHERE MORE THAN ONE ARBITRATOR SHOULD BE APPOINTED, AND THE BILL WOULD BE AMENDED TO ALLOW FOR THIS.
MR. HENDERSON SAID THAT THERE HAD BEEN SOME DOUBTS ABOUT THE RIGHT OF AUDIENCE BEFORE ARBITRATORS AND BOARDS OF INQUIRY. AMENDMENTS WOULD BE PROPOSED TO MAKE CLEAR THE POSITION OF PARTIES AND THEIR.REPRESENTATIVES IN THESE PROCEEDINGS.
HE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE PANEL OF ARBITRATORS WHO COULD BE CALLED ON WOULD BE PUBLISHED IN THE GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, SO IF A CASE AROSE WHERE THERE WERE REASONABLE OBJECTIONS TO A PARTICULAR ARBITRATOR BEING APPOINTED FOR A SPECIFIC DISPUTE, THEY COULD BE MADE TO THE COMMISSIONER BEFORE THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL NAMED AN ARBITRATOR.
SOME THOUGHTFUL COMMENT HAD BEEN PROVOKED THAT THE BILL DID NOT TAKE POSITIVE STEPS TO PROMOTE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.
+THIS, HOWEVER WELL-INTENTIONED, SEEMS TO ME TO MISS THE POINT, HE SAID.
THE PROCESS OF