TNAG-0087-FCO40-123-Conditions-of-employment-for-Hong-Kong-Chinese-working-in-th-1969 — Page 88

. 2

(12).

(13).

(14).

(15).

(16).

23rd August, 1966. Another request to Commissioner for a contract fair to both parties.

25th September, 1966. We informed Commissioner that Ministry of Labour State that the attested contracts are in conflict with Aliens Order. Requested alteration.

4th October, 1966. Another request for the Commissioner to attesta contract fair to both parties. We quote further abuses and state'that the point we are trying to make it gives a DISHONEST PERSON etc'.

ཐོ་

4th October, 1966. We received notification "that contracts submitted by our agents with clause 14(b) altered to give protection to employer in event of prior termination were returned marked 'not acceptable". ie wrote and requested Commissioner states his statutory authority for his actions.

++

31st October, 1966. Commissioner wrote referring to his letter 14th September (see 10) and states "Review your recruiting arrangement in an attempt to select suitable workers"... "We have not been informed of any cases of 'dishonest workers' except the three cases quoted by you"... "This is precisely what the law is intended to do protect the Hong kong workers'...

I'

(Although he now admits he is aware of the abuses he still refuses to assist in any way possible to prevent future cases, yet by the reference to his letter 14th September, he is rejecting the very reasons he puts forward.)

14th November, 1966. We reply to the above and draw attention to 14th September letter quoting Article 12. (3), and ask 'Do you consider that this is an equitable settlement when the employer has no redress other than one month's money?' We received no further reply. Likewise the request (see 14) for 'statutory to which we sent two further letters for a reply 14th November 1966 and 16th January 1967, registered. Although acknowledged 11th February 1967, we have never received reply.