TNAG-0092-FCO40-128-Ministry-of-Public-Buildings-and-Works-Future-of-locally-eng-1967 — Page 20

the staff as new entrants. On the dockyard precedent we assume

that, while salaries might be adjusted to take account of past

experience and service with H.M.G., the staff would start at the

bottom so far as seniority was concerned.

6.

The H.P.B.W. say this is a different and unprecedented

situation. These are not true redundancies (as in the closure of the

dockyard). In this case the work remains to be done and is being

taken over by the Hong Kong Government and they should take over all

the staff who were doing this work. We understand them to be making

two points:-

7.

(a) this situation should be handled in the same way

as a transfer of staff between public authorities

in the U.K. where work is being transferred;

(b) all staff should be taken over by Hong Kong

Government in their proper grades and appropriate

seniority according to length of service with

H.M.G. Subsequently if, by process of reorganisa-

tion or nationalisation of the work, staff become

redundant then the most junior (whether ex-M.P.B.W.

or Hong Kong Government staff) should be laid off.

We must agree that the Kaval dockyard agreement is not

Nevertheless, the M.P.B.W. proposals are open

an exact precedent. Nevertheless,

to objection on a number of grounds:-

(a) the Hong Kong Government service is a distinct and

separate public service under another government.

It is a service which the Hong Kong Government

administers and pays for. (The Treasury would not

want it otherwise.);

(b) we are here dealing with unestablished staff who,

on moving from one public service to another, do so

on the basis that there is a clean break; they enter

the new service as new entrants.

The M.P.B.”.

/appear