102.22/6–2749: Telegram
The Consul General at Shanghai (Cabot) to the Secretary of State
[Received June 27—10:45 a. m.]
This refers previous messages concerning former employees NavPortFac Shanghai:
Following memo delivered Friday, 24 June:
“In response to numerous inquiries by former employees of United States Navy Port Facilities, Shanghai, and as agreed by the American Consulate General with certain representatives of former USN Port Facilities employees, the Consulate General has informed the US Navy of the situation and the claims of its former civilian employees.
Following receipt of the Consulate General’s report, the Navy has now authorized the Consulate General to pay 1 month’s salary in lieu of 2 weeks’ separation notice, and as a termination bonus, to those employees having continuous satisfactory service of 1 year or longer prior to April 27, 1949 with US Navy Port Facilities, Shanghai. Two weeks’ salary is authorized as a termination bonus for employees of less than 1 year’s satisfactory service who were on the payroll as of April 27, 1949.
Arrangements are being made to complete a payroll based upon information supplied by the United States Navy. A notice as to when [Page 1187] and where to report to receive payment will be issued as soon as we are in receipt of complete payroll lists from the Navy. The payment, of course, will be made in People’s Bank Notes in accordance with the new Chinese regulations.
In authorizing these payments and providing the funds for them, the United States Navy wishes to point out the following facts:
- (1)
- All of the local employees of the Navy were on temporary appointments only, in accordance with USN civilian personnel instructions, which are not governed by regulations or procedures of other US Government agencies or other local civilian employers. This was understood by all employees at the time of their appointments.
- (2)
- Nothing other than the temporary employment outlined in (1) above was ever pledged or implied.
- (3)
- Although formal notices of separation could not be delivered under the circumstances prevailing at the time of departure of the Navy, all hands were well aware of the possibility of NavPortFac’s early closure and each employee knew when he accepted his pay on April 27 that the payment was final, particularly since it included a lump sum payment for accumulated leave in accordance with USN regulations. It should be noted that, although the regulations specify that 2 weeks’ notice should be given by the employee or the employer prior to termination, such notice is not mandatory under the regulations (even for temporary employees of more than 1 year’s service), and there is no provision, pledged or implied, to pay salaries in lieu of such notices. Because of the exigencies under which the Navy departed from Shanghai, delivery of such notices was of course impracticable, as was the collection of official US Navy badges retained for the most part by the employees.
The USN paid among the highest salary rates of any employer in Shanghai. Employees were consistently paid the highest rates obtainable when paid in local currency, and were protected against falling exchange during the chaotic exchange situation rates expressed in terms of US dollars.
It should be clearly understood that the United States Navy, in voluntarily offering this settlement, is doing so in keeping with the policy of the United States Government with respect to fair treatment of all its employees.
It should further be clearly understood that, in accepting this payment, each former employee waives all further claims against the United States Navy or the United States Government by virtue of his former employment, and in accepting this payment, each employee will be required to sign a certificate to that effect. American Consulate General.”
Following letter response to Consul General, Shanghai, memo to ex-NavPortFac Shanghai employees received at meeting today:
Shanghai, June 25, 1949. The American Consul General, American Consulate General, 2, Peking Road, Shanghai.
Dear Sir: The committee of former civilian employees of the US Navy do this date acknowledge receipt of your undated memorandum [Page 1188] (for all former employees of United States Navy Port Facilities, Shanghai), the contents of which have been carefully noted.
While we fully appreciate the prompt action you have taken in connection with our petition of June 14, 1949, and are indeed grateful for the favorable consideration given same by your good self and the US Navy, we wish to state that your above-mentioned undated memorandum does not constitute a direct reply to our petition and some of the “facts” drawn to our attention are, in our opinion, incorrect and therefore subject to controversy. We shall endeavor to present below our understanding of the “facts” in the order enumerated by you.
(a) Your paragraphs (1) and (2). We fully agree that all local employees were on temporary appointments only and nothing other than temporary employment was ever pledged or implied. However, local employees of ESD 44, US Army, UNRRA, ECA and other US Government agencies were also on temporary appointments and adequate notice and substantial termination pay were given such employees when these agencies deactivated.
(b) Your paragraph (3). While we were indirectly aware of the early closure of NavPortFac, we had not anticipated the end to be so sudden and abrupt. Neither did we expect to be abandoned in the way we were. We were given to understand that the payment of salary on April 27, 1949, plus accrued annual leave due was a precautionary measure and no indication whatever was given that the pay was final and that the US Navy would depart the following day. Inquiries made of officers resulted only in evasive and conflicting replies which served only to further complicate the situation. As an illustration, may we state that employees who had been released and who came for payment of monies due on the morning of April 27, 1949, were turned away and advised to call again on Saturday, April 30, 1949.
We do not agree with your contention, that although the regulations specify that 2 weeks’ notice shall be given to employees in the event of separation after 1 year’s continuous service, such notice is not mandatory. Employment and separation of local employees by the US Navy have been guided by regulations at all times. Operation of the US Navy and other US Government agencies are governed by regulation. If such regulations are not mandatory, then why are regulations made and why did the US Navy take the trouble in issuing the “Notice to New Employees” and hand one copy each to every new employee? You further claim the exigencies under which the Navy departed from Shanghai made the delivery of separation notices impracticable. If the Navy had given greater consideration to the welfare of their local employees who had served them faithfully, such notice could have been given at the time of payment of salaries on April 27, as there was sufficient time, and if the pay on that date was to be considered final, the collection of official US Navy badges could have been made at the same time.
(c) Your paragraph (4). We are indeed grateful to the US Navy for the generous treatment and remuneration received while we were in their employ and our services required. However, in return they received our best efforts and much over-time work without compensation at all times. We do not wish to appear ungrateful or unreasonable but we would like to again encroach upon your valuable time and solicit your kind assistance in obtaining better terms for us from the US Naval authorities. When the Navy left we were given verbal [Page 1189] assurance that some payment would be made to us through the American Consulate General. It is now 2 months that we have waited and nothing concrete has materialized. Your memorandum did not state any specific date when payment would be made. It could be in the near future and yet it could be in the distant future. There are many of us who would have liked to return to our homeland but have not done so only because we have waited for the promised money from the US Navy. In the meantime our funds are running now and by the time we receive the termination bonus as mentioned in your memorandum, such fund might only be sufficient to liquidate our debts. In view of this and the fact that we are all undergoing difficult times owing to the present unstable economic conditions in Shanghai, we have no alternative but to reiterate that a payment to cover salary for from May 1, 1949 to June 24, 1949, the date of receipt of our above-mentioned memorandum, which can be construed as the official notice of separation plus 3 months’ termination pay, would be a more appropriate and justifiable compensation under present circumstances.
We feel sure if all concerned are thoroughly familiar with our predicament, they will be sympathetic to our cause and would reconsider the contents of your undated memorandum and would offer more generous terms.
In conclusion we wish to again apologize for the inconvenience caused and to thank you for the courtesies extended to and the kind and valuable assistance given us in this distasteful matter.
Anticipating an early reply, we remain, Yours most respectfully, Committee of Former Civilian Employees of US Navy, Shanghai, China.