XN000022-1990-06-06 — Page 13

+

11

WE 'NESDAY, JUNE 6, 1990

THE

WHEN THIS BURDEN WAS CONSIDERED AGAINST

CIRCUMSTANCES OF UNINCORPORATED PROFESSIONAL PARTNERSHIPS, MR YEUNG SAID, THE BILL WOULD REQUIRE CURRENT PARTNERS TO INJECT VERY SUBSTANTIAL FUNDS INTO THEIR BUSINESSES TO COVER LIABILITIES THAT HAD IN MANY CASES BEEN INCURRED BY THEIR PREDECESSORS.

FROM

HE REALISED THAT THE CONCESSION ARISING

PHASING IN LIABILITIES WOULD HAVE THE EFFECT OF DEFERRING THE FULL BENEFIT OF THE LONG SERVICE PAYMENT AND SEVERANCE PAYMENT PROVISIONS FOR NON-MANUAL WORKERS PAID ABOVE $15,000 A MONTH, AND HE COULD THEREFORE UNDERSTAND THE DISAPPOINTMENT OF THE HON TAM YIU-CHUNG.

MR YEUNG SAID HE HAD CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE POSSIBILITY OF RESTRICTING THE SCOPE OF THIS CONCESSION TO THE ACCOUNTING AND LEGAL PROFESSIONS, BUT HAD COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THIS WOULD CONFLICT WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE PRINCIPAL ORDINANCE, WHICH DID NOT ALLOW INDIVIDUAL INDUSTRIES AND PROFESSIONS TO CONTRACT OUT OF ITS AMBIT.

MR YEUNG SAID THAT PERFECTION, NOT UNLIKE BEAUTY,

EYE OF THE BEHOLDER.

WAS IN THE

"IN THIS SENSE, EMPLOYMENT LEGISLATION CAN NEVER BE PERFECT, BECAUSE IT IS INVARIABLY THE OUTCOME OF CONSULTATION AND COMPROMISE.

"IN COMMENDING THIS BILL AND THE COMMITTEE STAGE FOR ACCEPTANCE, MAY I REMIND HONOURABLE MEMBERS THAT THE VERY OFTEN THE ENEMY OF THE GOOD,' HE SAID.

tt

AMENDMENTS PERFECT

IS

BILL WILL GIVE BETTER PROTECTION TO EMPLOYEES

EMPLOYMENT

THE THE MOST SIGNIFICANT AMENDMENT OF

(AMENDMENT) NON-MANUAL BILL 1989 WAS TO REMOVE THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN MANUAL AND

OF THE EMPLOYEES ENABLING ALL EMPLOYEES TO COME UNDER THE PROTECTION

REGARDLESS OF THEIR WAGE STANDARDS SET IN THE EMPLOYMENT ORDINANCE

TODAY LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL LEVELS, THE HON PAUL CHENG (WEDNESDAY).

SAID

THE IN

SAID THE SPEAKING IN THE RESUMED DEBATE ON THE BILL, MR CHENG

PROVISIONS IN THE EMPLOYMENT MEASURE ALSO SOUGHT TO STRENGTHEN THE ORDINANCE TO IMPROVE THE PROTECTION FOR EMPLOYEES GENERALLY.

THE REVISION ANOTHER MAJOR AMENDMENT TO THE ORDINANCE WAS

EMPLOYMENT" SO THAT THE DEFINITION ON "CONTINUOUS CONTRACT OF EMPLOYEE WHO HAD WORKED A TOTAL OF 18 HOURS A WEEK WITHIN A PERIOD FOUR CONSECUTIVE WEEKS WOULD BE PROTECTED.

OF

AN OF

DEEMED ΤΟ OF TIME WOULD

THE BILL ALSO REDEFINED "LAY-OFF" SO THAT EMPLOYEES BE LAID OFF AFTER BEING EMPLOYED FOR A CERTAIN PERIOD BE ENTITLED TO SEVERANCE PAYMENTS.

/FINALLY, THE