TNAG-0127-FCO40-163-Illegal-strikes-and-lockouts-ordinance-1969 — Page 7

?

that the principal features of this model Ordinance were that:

(a) the right of workers in essential services to

strike would be delayed but not prohibited;

(b) the penal provisions would apply to all breaches

of contract in defined circumstances; and (c) steps would be taken to ensure that workers in

essential services would be made aware of their responsibilities by the posting of notices in premises where they worked.

In addition particular attention was also drawn in the despatches commending this model to Colonial Governments, to the necessity of establishing joint consultative and negotiating machinery in all essential services. This was on the ground that, where the right of workers to withdraw their labour had been restricted a special obligation was placed on the employer to ensure adequate arrangements for the settlement of disputes and the redress of grievances (I enclose for ease of reference copies of the relevant despatches, their accompanying memoranda and draft texts, i.e. Circular Despatch No. 629/60 of 13 June, 1960 and Circular Despatch No. 505/61 of 17 May, 1961).

4.

Against this background I have the following comments on the matters raised in your Saving Despatch.

5. In that Despatch you invited my agreement to the existing Ordinance (amended solely in respect of the provisions of Section 3, under which a strike or lock- out, having an object other than or in addition to the furtherance of a trade dispute, can be declared illegal) being made part of Hong Kong's permanent legislation. The provisions of Section 3, which contain the essence of the Ordinance, are based upon the United Kingdom Trades Dispute Act of 1927 which has now been repealed; the Hong Kong provisions have never been invoked and you have your- self commented that it is difficult to conceive of circum- stances in which, even as amended, they might be of practical value in view of the difficulties of enforcement; on both these grounds I would greatly prefer to have seen such provisions disappear from the Statute Book. I note, however, that it is on the strength of their deterrent value that it is suggested they should be retained and made part of Hong Kong's permanent legislation. I recognise that their retention could have such value in present circumstances in Hong Kong; that such circumstances are unlikely to change in the foreseeable future, and that in these circum- stances the disappearance of such provisions from the Statute Book could serve as an incitement to political agitation, concealed in industrial guise. I would therefore be prepared to agree, if on further reflection you feel you must maintain your recommendation as made over a year ago,

/ that ...