on strike that their action was
illegal. Moreover where acts are
done inciting or instigating a
strike before the strike is declared
by the Governor in Council to be illegal, it would not be sufficient for the purposes of a prosecution in
respect of those acts merely to show
that the Governor in Council had subsequently declared the strike illegal. It would, I am advised, be necessary to establish that the strike was illegal under Section
3(1).
7. I note that you do not propose to amend
other provisions of this Ordinance. But in
my view this opportunity to incorporate
certain mest desirable features of the model
legislation should not be allowed to pass. I have in mind provision under Section 5 for
the collective withdrawal of labour by a trade union; and a general provision requiring employers to post notices in all premises giving the text of the main
reference has provisions of the Ordinance (to which I have been made
referred in paragraph 2(c) above).
8.
I would ask you therefore to reconsider the proposed amendments to the Illegal Strikes and Lock-Outs Ordinance in the light of the
foregoing comments. It would, I consider, be unwise merely to amend the legislation along the lines you contemplate. Improved legislation to deal with strikes and lock- outs in essential services is needed, but it would be preferable to replace the existing legislation with a new and comprehensive Bill containing inter alia provisions of a more specific kind than is at present contained in Hong Kong legislation for the settlement
of disputes.
NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.