TNAG-0127-FCO40-163-Illegal-strikes-and-lockouts-ordinance-1969 — Page 19

CONFIDENTIAL

१५

Mr. Carter

Essential Services Legislation Hong Kong

I am ready to discuss with Mr. Wilford and you as you suggested in your minute of 11 December but your minute has persuaded me that I can drop the point about the collective withdrawal of labour which

I raised in earlier minuting.

2.

I have found the draft saving despatch somewhat convoluted and would prefer that we should tell the Governor more precisely what we wish him to consider than is apparent from the draft.

3. I have tried my hand at the attached revised draft which seems to be entirely consistent with the line which you agreed with

Mr. Foggon. There are however two points on which further precision might be desirable

(1) While you say in paragraph 10(a) of the submission that "we

need not ask Hong Kong to re-consider the provisions of their legislation in respect of the period of notice of a strike laid down in the model legislation" by which I assume you

refer to the proviso to 1(1) of the revised model clause, I equally assume that you would not propose that the trades union should be put in a position in which it could legally

withdraw the labour of its members from an essential service

at a moment's notice, otherwise the general purposes of the legislation would be frustrated and the ability to reach an agreed settlement before a strike would be prejudiced. It is not entirely clear from the submission or the original draft whether the Governor is being invited to consider adding to any permanent legislation the three points mentioned in paragraph 6 of the submission or whether he is being invited to consider in addition to these points further specific machinery for the settlement of industrial disputes and grievances in essential industries. If, as appears to be the case, the latter is intended is the Governor in a position to estimate what sort of machinery for the settlement of disputes should be set up or should we give him further guidance?

4.

(2)

You will see that I have omitted from the draft the paragraphs dealing with the Indian precedent and with Mr. Foggon's discussions with the Employers Federation in Hong Kong in February 1969.

seem

They

CONFIDENTIAL