TNAG-0452-FCO40-517-Legislation-for-employment-of-workers-in-Hong-Kong-1974 — Page 242

KMT

ilipo pl

DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT

OVERSEAS BRANCH B1

Steel House 11 Tothill Street London SW1

G Fogcon Esq CMG OBE

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Great George Street

LONDON

SW1A 2AH

1

Telephone 01-799 7777 ext

LA393

W/3A

Your reference

Our reference 6/05 185/71

Date 18 January 1974

APPLICATION OF INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONVENTION NO 98 HONG KONG

In Barbara Green's absence I am writing to thank you for your letters of 19 December 1973, 3 January and 9 January 1974 concerning the proposed application of Convention No 98 in Hong Kong. This Convention was ratified by the UK on 30 June 1950. Our first report made under Article 22 of the ILO Constitution included the following points on the application of the provisions of Articles 1 and 2:-

Article 1

Article 2

"Workers in the UK enjoy adequate protection against acts of the type described in this Article by, virtue of the strength of their collective organisation in trade unions, and also by the widespread acceptance on both sides of industry of the principles underlying the articles."

"Adequate protection against the acts described is enjoyed by virtue of the strength of the collective organisation among both employers and workers in the United Kingdom, and by the Widespread acceptance on both sides of industry of the principle

of non-interference in each other's affairs which is a characteristic of the United Kingdom system of industrial relations."

Antius, 6 an177

This position remained unchanged until the coming into force of the Industrial Relations Act 1971 which in Sections 5(2)(c) and 67 provided on both the points raised in the letter of Mr Valticos. The UK has not been criticised by the ILO Committee of Experts for either of these methods of applying Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention.

You will recall that in March 1973 the Committee of Experts made a general survey of the application of Conventions 87 and 98,their findings were published as Report III (Part 4B) of the Committee of Expert's Report to the 1973 Conference. In paragraph 152 of the Report the Committee points out that "Special protective provisions in the law are less frequent with regard to acts of interference than with regard to acts of anti-union dẹscrimination. A number of governments state, in this connection, that the strength and development of the trade unions are sufficient to protect these organisations against any acts of interference." A little later in the

I