TNAG-0087-FCO40-123-Conditions-of-employment-for-Hong-Kong-Chinese-working-in-th-1969 — Page 15

Reference...

29

Flag D

Flag

C

Flag E

Mr. Godden

Mr. Burn of Oriental Domestics, a firm

recruiting in Hong Kong for domestic workers in this country, has once more sent through Mrs. Jeger voluminous representations (Flag A) about Hong Kong's model contract for aliens recruited in Hong Kong for employment overseas. There were earlier represen- tations (Flag B) to which the Minister replied (Flag C).

2.

Mr. Burn is a somewhat incoherent correspondent and it is not always easy to find out what is troubling him. The continuation of this correspon- dence is due basically to two misconceptions on his part :-

(a)

(b)

3.

He fails to appreciate that, although the contracts he negotiates are by and large based on a model contract produced by the Hong Kong Government and are attested by that Government as required by statute, neither the Hong Kong Government nor any other public authority has any duty or responsibility in the matter of their enforcement. They are contracts between the parties enforceable by civil action in the courts at the instance of the parties.

He does not appear to understand (although his own Counsel advised him correctly in this respect) that while the model contract includes provisions that are optional and negotiable there are some that are mandatory and must be included if the document is to be attested by the Hong Kong Government. The mandatory provisions are set out in Section 5(2) of the Hong Kong Ordinance. Sub-paragraphs (j) and (k) require

the inclusion of the clauses which Mr. Burn now says constitute his "only difficulty" - namely, those which make the employer responsible for passage costs both to the U.K. and back to Hong Kong. We have regrettably contributed to his confusion by writing in paragraph 2 of the letter signed by Lord Shepherd at (14) that "The contract is not one upon which the Commissioner /of Labour/ insists but a model for which he thinks the worker would be well advised to press" This is generally true but it would have been more accurate to have qualified this by a reference to the mandatory clauses.

€«penses

The

The

The mandatory clause dealing with repatriation is based on the I.L.O. Convention No. 64. responsibility placed upon the employer to bear the passage from Hong Kong to the U.K. is not, however, a requirement of the Convention (although it is a requirement of the Hong Kong law) and the Hong Kong Government could, if it wished, drop it. detailed reasons for this provision are given in paragraph 30 of Miss Ogilvie's note at E/18. view there is no case for asking the Hong Kong Government to reconsider it. The alternative of the employer advancing the Hong Kong U.K. passage costs to the employee and recovering from wages is open to many objections, of principle as well as practice, where such costs would be so high.

In my

/4.

Page 15Page 16