|
Clause 7
Postal votes for workers absent from ballot at workplace
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Bellingham: I have a small point to make. The clause makes it clear that the CAC may not decide that the ballot is to be conducted by a combination of postal and workplace voting unless special factors apply. What sort of factors are we talking about? What does the Minister have in mind here?
Mr. Sutcliffe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. When the CAC calls a ballot, it must decide what method of voting should be used. It may choose between a postal ballot and a ballot held in the workplace. In certain circumstances where special factors apply, the CAC can decide that the ballot should be conducted by a combination of those two methods. In a postal ballot, the voting paper is sent to a worker's home address and he or she has a couple of weeks to return the vote to the balloting organisation. In contrast, a workplace ballot takes place on one or perhaps two designated days and workers must vote in person. The clause aims to ensure that no worker who has to vote at the workplace is prevented from voting because he or she is absent on the day of the ballot.
Currently, the law is inflexible. If the CAC decides that there should be a workplace ballot or a combination ballot with workplace voting, every worker who wishes to vote must do so in person at his
Column Number: 45
or her place of work on a single day. That means that workers who are off sick, on holiday or have taken other approved leave on the day of the ballot forfeit the opportunity to cast their vote. Every vote counts—I have said that on many occasions—and that is especially so when the outcome is subject to a minimum number voting in favour of recognition.
Clearly, it is undesirable for workers to miss out on the opportunity to vote on the important question of whether they should be represented by a union in collective bargaining, especially if they are unavoidably absent because they are on maternity or paternity leave, they are a magistrate sitting on the day of the ballot, or for any other good reason. The clause corrects the anomaly while allowing the CAC to arrange for a postal ballot for such workers. I am sure that the Committee will agree that it is a sensible and desirable measure.
3 pm
Mr. Djanogly: I support the idea that ballots should be conducted entirely by post. The CAC annual report states:
''115 cases have now progressed to the balloting stage and 58 ballots have taken place. Of the ballots that have been concluded, 35 resulted in a majority voting in favour of recognition and in 23 the union failed to reach the required majority. The CAC has now commissioned 36 postal ballots, seven workplace ballots and 15 involving a combination of the two methods, most often a workplace ballot with the provision of a postal vote for those workers absent from the workplace on the day of the ballot.''
If any hon. Member thinks that I am quoting the report as a ploy to help the companies, I can assure them that that is not the case. The report continues:
''Postal ballots have nevertheless tended to provide the highest proportion of votes in favour of recognition.''
Despite that, I think that postal ballots should be in place in every circumstance. Things are moving that way, but I cannot understand why there are still any workplace ballots. If there will still be workplace ballots, will the Minister advise us as to whether there are regulations to deal with how those ballot are carried out?
Mr. Sutcliffe: The answer goes back to the earlier point about the test that someone must pass to become a qualified independent person to run and to access ballots. Employees of the companies that I mentioned have all passed that test.
The hon. Gentleman clearly has a strong view on whether there should be workplace or postal ballots. I think that the CAC should attend to the issue in the context of the particular industry, the relationship between the trade union and employer, and what normal practice has been in that sector. The CAC has the power to examine that, but it does not have the power to have a combination of the two voting systems. Surely the hon. Gentleman does not want people to be prevented from voting through no fault of their own.
Mr. Djanogly: Even if a workplace ballot is used, why should voters not have the right to demand a postal ballot if they so wish? The legislation provides that, if they are sick or so on, they can use a postal
Column Number: 46
ballot, but why should they not have the right to demand one in any event? The law has been changed on parliamentary or local government ballots: if someone wants a postal ballot, they can have one. Why should workers not have the same right?
Mr. Sutcliffe: They have the right if the CAC determines that to be the appropriate way to proceed through representations from the employer, trade union or individual. The CAC has that power. The difficulty with the old legislation was that it did not have the power to ensure that everyone was included, because the method of voting had to be one or the other. We are saying that a combination of the two is a fairer approach.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Employer's notice to end bargaining arrangements
Mr. Bellingham: I beg to move amendment No. 34, in
clause 9, page 9, line 11, after '(2)', insert ',(2A)'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 35, in
Mr. Bellingham: Clause 9 deals with the employer's notice to end bargaining arrangements. That notice may be given if the employer believes that he, with any associated employer, employed an average of fewer than 21 workers in any period of 13 weeks, and if three years have passed since the CAC awarded recognition. The CAC must decide if such notice complies with the requirements of paragraph 99(3) of schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The requirements are that the notice
and—this is the requirement relevant to the amendment—
''(d) is given within the period of 5 working days starting with the day after the last day of the specified period of 13 weeks.''
We are saying that 14 should be inserted instead of five.
We are discussing small and medium-sized enterprises—for example, companies employing slightly more than 21 employees, or small manufacturing plants that we all visit in our constituencies, where the owner-manager is often under enormous pressure and strain and is reeling under the burden of substantial extra regulations on the business. The Federation of Small Businesses
Column Number: 47
recently said that most owner-managers spend at least 10 hours a week dealing with regulation and burdensome business.
Given those circumstances, and in the interests of making life easier—not trying in any way to stop unions and union members from enjoying their rights—we are considering the interests of small and medium-sized enterprises, and would like to substitute five working days for 14 working days. That is a reasonable request and I hope that the Minister will consider it. We have not had any success yet, although we have had a few nods and winks from him suggesting that he will reconsider some of our suggestions. I think that this is a reasonable and sensible suggestion and I hope that he will accept it.
Mr. Djanogly: Clause 9 is a series of new provisions that tighten the existing ratchet in favour of the unions, generally against the interests of the company. Amendment No. 35 is a small proposed change. I am not sure whether the Minister has yet found the information that I requested this morning dealing with sizes of companies compared with the number of applications. [Interruption.]. I am pleased to see that he has, which is marvellous. I do not have time to study it on my feet but I shall do so later because I am sure that it will be mentioned again.
If a significant company has a significant human resources department, it will be used to dealing with the unions. It will be used to and well advised on union procedures. In that case, five days might be adequate. However, for smaller companies, such as that mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk, which have 21 staff, five days is a very short time in which to comply with the procedure, and will effectively block their rights to organised derecognition.
We must return to the basic principle that, if a company has fewer than 21 employees, it does not have to have recognition. This amendment would adapt that principle. We shall come on to the three-year rule, but we are talking here about five days to make notification after the 13-week period. An average small company, without a human resources department or knowledge of union law, will probably be massively disadvantaged and outgunned by the union's huge administrative and legal representation. The provision acts as a block to companies putting derecognition in place if staff numbers drop below 21. Fourteen days would go a little way—not very far, as it is a modest proposal—towards addressing that imbalance.
Mr. Sutcliffe: I appreciate the spirit in which the amendments have been tabled, but I am always concerned when someone says, ''Help me a little; I am trying to help you.'' Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 are closely linked and would ensure a change to the time limit in the statutory procedure. That time limit is in paragraph 99 of schedule A1 to the 1992 Act, which deals with an employer wishing to derecognise the union or unions because employment has fallen below 21 workers.
Column Number: 48
The process begins with the employer issuing a notice to the union or unions concerned and copying it to the CAC. The notice must contain various pieces of information and specify the 13-week period when employment was on average fewer than 21 workers. The notice must be issued within five working days of the end of that period. The amendment would extend that period from five to 14 working days. It is possible that the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk was thinking in terms of calendar days, rather than working days, when he tabled the amendment, but the overall intention is to give more time to the employer to issue the notice.
I am far from convinced that that extra time is needed. Generally speaking, we are addressing a situation in which employment is falling from a point where 21 or more workers are employed to one where employment is below 21. That could be a short-lived phenomenon, but it is more likely to be longer lasting or even permanent. If so, a little slippage in the reference period should not severely affect the calculation.
For example, if an employer for some reason could not get the notice out in time for a reference period ending on March 1, he could always issue a slightly reworded notice the day after in respect of a reference period ending on March 2. In other words, it is unlikely that he would lose his ability to derecognise if a problem about the notice ever arose.
I see no obvious reason why the employer will not be able to issue the notice on time in virtually all situations. Most bargaining units are small, and we are not talking about intricate calculations. We do not agree with the case to increase the notice period from what will often be one working week to nearly three working weeks. Despite the hon. Gentleman's plea, I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
|
