124.933/9–949: Telegram

The Counselor of Embassy in China ( Jones ) to the Secretary of State

2043. Following developments labor front since Embtel 2005, September 5, repeated Shanghai 1089, Taipei 88:

Despite Embassy instructions to watchman at 5 Ninghai to admit no one to premises beginning September 6, discharged employees prevailed on him to admit them and spent working hours September [Page 824] 6, 7 and 8 in compound, leaving one employee overnight to readmit them each morning. Efforts persuade them leave unavailing. We have informed them we consider their notices of termination valid, and since they are no longer Embassy employees, they have no right occupy US Government property. They insist employment not terminated until agreement reached on separation terms, and are supported in this view by General Labor Union and American Embassy Employees’ Committee.

Clough78 went September 8 with employee representatives to AAO in further effort to bring dispute formally to attention authorities. AAO representative Tsui stated General Labor Union already in contact with employees, and will represent them in direct negotiations with employer. GLU will set time for opening negotiations. Tsui referred to Bennett79 as employer but after being informed (1) that USIS integral part of US State Department operations in China, as MCC itself recognized in notice to USIS to terminate; (2) that discharged employees on Embassy payroll and under jurisdiction Embassy personnel office, he did not press point beyond usual formal declaration that People’s Government does not recognize USIS or Embassy, and it seems likely Clough will be able continue to negotiate on behalf Embassy.

Tsui also stated while negotiations in progress employer: Not discharge employees and latter have obligation continue work for employer. When asked for pertinent regulation, he referred to Shanghai provisional labor regulations published Nanking Hsin Hua Jih Pao September 6. However, he would not state that these regulations are binding in Nanking, but said merely that they could be used for “reference purposes” in negotiations.

Tsui refused to discuss our contention that employees’ employment terminated September 3, and they had no right enter US Government property without our permission. He said this question as well as that of proper amount of severance pay could only be discussed directly with GLU.

At opening of negotiations with GLU, Embassy will take following position:

1.
Occupation US Government property by discharged employees form of duress making it impossible for us to negotiate while it continues;
2.
Embassy does have right to discharge employees and latter cannot continue employment at will simply by making exorbitant demands;
3.
Embassy has contract with employees providing terms of severance. This contract must be taken into consideration in discussion of additional demands employees have made.

[Page 825]

Initial meeting with GLU representative will be of exploratory nature to feel out his attitude. Embassy does not expect make any concessions at this meeting beyond Shanghai offer referred to Embtel 2005, September 5.

We have been informed by senior employee that present attitude of Embassy Employees’ Committee is to mark time pending Shanghai settlement, following which they will demand same treatment. We will continue push for separate settlement although, if GLU adopts delaying tactics, there is little we can do to expedite matters.

We are closing building at 5 Ninghai and withdrawing librarian who has been working there in order strengthen our contention that discharged USIS employees no longer working. If we succeed, discharged employees will then have access only to gatehouse and courtyard.

Sent Department 2043; repeated Shanghai 1108, Taipei 92.

Jones
  1. Ralph N. Clough, Second Secretary of Embassy in China.
  2. Director of United States Information Service.