TNAG-0087-FCO40-123-Conditions-of-employment-for-Hong-Kong-Chinese-working-in-th-1969 — Page 81

Mrs. L.M. Jeger, MP.

5.

3rd November, 1967.

(3).

was presented in 1964.

"During the conversations with the Commissioner

there was no mention of Ordinance extending to the U. K."

This view agreed with the questions we wrote to the Colonial Office, Press Office in 1964., and the subsequent answers we received. Letter dated 12th November, 1964 to the Colonial Office confirms the conversation.

I

During this period August, 1966., we were having trouble over certain servants leaving their employers for better paid jobs elsewhere and following service of a High Court Writ, the Public Control of the Borough of Camden, informed us that there would be an enquiry into this case when it was no longer sub- judice. They inspected the contracts at this time and were concerned over there unfairness to the employers. As a result of this conversation, we wrote to the Commissioner stating their concern and putting forward even further considerations to ensure him that by granting a contract fair to both parties the employee would be adequately protected under U. K. Civil Law, Local Government By-Laws and a personal assurance that the Public Control Officer would at any time be available to assist any person requesting. We added a personal assurance that we would never allow an employee to be subjected to any abuse of rights.

In this letter dated 5th August, 1966, page three paragraph two, we draw attention "that the contract is misleading although the term is for two years, by virtue of its termination clause 14(b)., it is merely a monthly contract'. The other clauses are mentioned and the fact that the Ministry would not enforce them.

Cont'd/.......

!