Mrs. L. M. Jeger, MP.
-
- 9
3rd November, 1967.
dress the employer can claim is one month's money could not be considered 'an equitable settlement' once again we request a fair contract.
We received no satisfactory reply and therefore on 4th October, we wrote requesting the Commissioner to state his statutory authority. This remained unacknowledged as did a further request for a reply sent 14th November, 1966.
At the suggestion of the Ministry of Labour, we sent a registered letter marked 'Private' on 16th January, 1967. This was acknowledged on 11th February, at this time the receipt of the previous letters were confirmed. The reply merely referred to the extended period of termination, making no attempt to state the question asked, i.e. 'the statutory authority'.
Para. 4.
The fact 'Mr. Burn has been made aware of most if not all of these points in the past' have been due to my own efforts.
(a). The Commonwealth Office cannot in any way be respon- sible for conveying any information as they have neither replied nor acknowledged a single letter since our correspondence was instituted November, 1964. The present reply, which I suggest is solely due to the efforts of our respective MP's has taken ten months. In 1900 one could send and receive a reply from Hong Kong in three months.
(b). Whilst the recruitment of workers from Hong Kong involves risks, there is no reason why the risk cannot be reduced. We see no reason why an agreement made between employer and employee before subject to attestation by a representative of Her Majesty, the lealer of the Church of England, must contain such clauses that not only present the opportunity for the non-observance of two of the ten commandments, but in addition, offer considerable financial advantage to those so tempted.
:
1
Cont'd/......
1
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.