2
without giving it a good try. In his opinion, the Report would provide a blue print for the development of consultative procedures for the 1980s. The Government had already accepted the Commission's recommendations, and staff were being consulted only on details of implementation of the various proposals.
2.
Mr Batchelor said that his affiliates were unhappy about the fact that when the Report was
submitted to Government in September, staff unions were not given the opportunity to comment on it before it was approved by the Executive Council. He saw no reason why the recommendations could be implemented
нет
人
on a trial.basis, and if certain recommendations were
·
in the process found to be impracticable, then suitable improvements should be made immediately. Mr So emphasized once again that the Report No..4 provided only a broad framework for consultative arrangements; a lot of procedural matters were still open to discussion, and on these, the staff's views would be welcomed. He was confident that with goodwill and cooperation between both sides, the proposed basic system would work. If in the light of experience over a period, both management and staff found it necessary to introduce changes, they could always seek a review by the Standing Commission. This, however, could be done only after the present proposals had been tried
out.
3.
Mr Rowlands said that there were two main
issues on which there seemed to be a divergence of views between management and some staff unions:-
(a)
the granting of negotiating rights to staff: on this, it was the management's view, after having taken the Standing
/ Commission's
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.