The Labour Advisory Board is likely to support the Government's call to scrap the law on collective bargaining, according to an employers' representative. Ho Sai-chu hinted yesterday that the law, sponsored by ousted legislator Lee Cheuk-yan, might be scrapped. He said there was an understanding between employers and the Government that the law would harm the economy. Some of the workers' representatives on the board agreed the law was not suitable, he claimed. The law is one of four labour laws enacted by the pre-handover Legislative Council which was frozen by the provisional legislature earlier this month. The Government has said it will review the laws and decide by October 31 whether to scrap them. Mr Ho said that if the law was enacted, workers would have to follow the instructions of the unions, such as how many hours they should work every day. 'It is against the wishes of most workers since most of us want to work longer hours to earn more money, but this law will cause us great trouble,'he said. However, Poon Siu-ping, a labour representative on the board, said the labour law should only be amended. 'The Government's opposition to these labour laws is crystal clear. But we don't want to see any laws being scrapped by the LAB,' he said. The tripatite body said on Monday that its sub-committees would re-examine all the suspended laws next week. Mr Ho said legal advice would be sought next week on one of the labour laws that allows workers to be reinstated if they are sacked for belonging to a union. 'Since the former Legco has passed a similar ordinance this year, so we want to see if it is legally acceptable to have two similar laws,' he said. He said the Government could apply to the Provisional Legislative Council to extend the suspension period if no solution was found. Unionist Mr Lee said Mr Ho's remarks reflected the fact that the board was controlled by officials and business groups. 'Even if his remarks are untrue, it will still pre-empt the whole discussion of the LAB,' Mr Lee said. 'But if it is true, it shows the so-called review is meaningless.'