124.933/9–549: Telegram
The Counselor of Embassy in China (Jones) to the Secretary of State
[Received September 5—9:10 a. m.]
2005. At adjourned meeting, August 23, (Embtel 1873, August 23) Embassy Employees’ Committee indicated no change their position and Embassy expressed view matter must be brought to attention General Labor Union. August 24 splinter group proposed whole matter be deferred await results Shanghai negotiations. Meantime Committee obtained signatures great majority employees (including all separated USIS staff) take no step individually. Embassy prepared [Page 823] letter to Union setting forth general terms Government provisions, accumulated accrued leave, retirement deductions and effect application each separated employee. Although Committee known to have been consulting Union informally, pressing of case by Embassy produced new conferences August 29–31 with final September 1, at which Embassy without making offer requested Committee’s views Shanghai terms (Shanghai’s 3312, August 1877) and suggested discussion these terms applied in reverse might be fruitful as Embassy considered special circumstances warranted giving proportionately greatest benefits to those employees with smallest accumulations. Committee retired, then proposed bonuses equal 8 months’ salary all employees plus $100 those earning between 1,000–1500 annually and $200 to those earning less. Committee also requested payment maintenance at full salary, pending dispute, from September 3 onward and agreement not to dismiss, pending dispute, any additional employees. Embassy naturally obliged reject all proposals, and delivered reference letter to Union September 2. Union expressed interest but stated unable accept letter or act on request it state its views as to whether employment contract existed or whether dismissal notices valid, on ground only employees can ask Union to take any action. Union then indicated Embassy’s proper course was to take up matter with Aliens Affairs Office. Memo requesting AAO to take cognizance dispute and forward letter to Union delivered to AAO morning 3rd. AAO stated it provisionally obliged reject memo because (1) objected to statement dismissals resulted from closure USIS public activities, (2) had not received communication from employees and therefore not familiar with all facts, (3) both parties should continue negotiate directly with each other and reach settlement. Meantime Committee indicated own intention approach Union but it is believed it has not yet done so.
Sent Dept; repeated Shanghai 1089, Taipei 88.
- Not printed.↩