| Employment Relations Bill
|
|
Mr. Bellingham: I want to make a quick extra point. A factory closed in my constituency when the company went into receivership, and many employees were laid off. The company was bought by a Belgian company. I had many discussions with the Transport and General Workers Union branch officer and with T and G stewards in the factory. I presume that the branch officer, who is based in Cambridge or Peterborough, will be a full-time employee of the union and would be covered by the provision. The Minister appears to be saying that the stewards in the factory would not be covered. Obviously, stewards in the factory have a great deal of information, but they are employees of the company and work voluntarily for the union. Am I right that the full-time employee of the T and G, whom I met at various meetings, would be an employee of the union for the purposes of the Bill? Mr. Sutcliffe: As I understand it, yes. Mr. Bellingham: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. Column Number: 085 Mr. Bellingham: I have some important questions to ask the Minister. The Opposition tabled an amendment that the learned Clerk tells me would go to the core of the clause and change it fundamentally. The wording of the original statute is:
That is to be replaced by subsection (3), which states:
I conclude that the new wording is intended to reduce uncertainty about what information the unions are required to give employers. That obviously makes sense. However, the Opposition strongly believe that the original requirement was more conducive to harmonious employment relations and efficient management. I urge the Minister to explain exactly why he believes it to be necessary to depart from the wording of the original statute. We tabled what we believe is a perfectly reasonable amendment. The learned Clerk, to whom I defer and whom I respect enormously, took the view that the amendment went to the core of the clause. Will the Minister enlighten the Committee as to his thinking?
9.45 amMr. Sutcliffe: I shall try to do what the hon. Gentleman asks, if that is possible. The essential features of the pre-1997 law on industrial action have been retained. The industrial relations scene has improved. Those aspects have become an accepted feature of our employment relations system and the Government have no plans to remove them. However, parts of the law have become too complex and act as a tripwire for unions. Even when unions meet the main requirements of the law, they can still make technical mistakes that leave their actions open to time-consuming and costly legal challenge. That cannot be right and it does not represent good regulation. We are therefore taking a limited number of steps in the Bill to deal with problem areas, where the law is particularly cumbersome and unnecessarily onerous. The clause deals with the law on notices that the unions must supply in advance of pre-strike ballots. The 1999 Act amended that law but, in reviewing that Act, we concluded that those changes were in fact counter-productive. Contrary to our intentions, we probably increased the burden on unions, in many cases requiring them to provide detailed matrices in notices. Moreover, the changes to the 1999 Act left unclear precisely what information should be disclosed. In part, that conclusion flows from judgments in several high-profile legal cases, most notably London Underground Ltd. v. National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers. We have therefore acted quickly to ensure that the desired simplification is achieved. The clause aims to do that in several ways. First, it clearly defines the information that the union must provide in the notices. The requirement is to provide two lists that identify the categories of workers involved and the workplaces involved. In addition, the Column Number: 086 notices must contain figures that identify the total number of workers involved, the number of workers in each occupational category and the number of workers at each workplace. Together, those requirements remove the need to provide matrices. The proposals are based on the information that a union can realistically be expected to provide an employer. The union's duty is clear and the essential needs of the employer are met. No longer should unions be required to provide data of questionable accuracy and usefulness to employers.Secondly, the clause deletes the reference in the law requiring the union to supply such information as would enable the employer to make plans. The original formulation left it wide open for an employer to assert that extra information was needed and meant that the union never knew with certainty whether it had met the requirements of the law. Thirdly, we have made it clear that the union need only supply information that is in the possession of, or accessible to, union employees or union officers, such as general secretaries. Jim Sheridan (West Renfrewshire) (Lab): I listened yesterday to the hon. Member for Huntingdon's speech on his ten-minute Bill on European deregulation. Not once was the question of employees mentioned, which gives an indication of exactly where his priorities lie. The clause will relieve trade unions of the current administrative burden, but can my hon. Friend the Minister clarify the meaning and likely application of the phrase ''categories of employee''? Mr. Sutcliffe: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. I did not have the opportunity to hear the hon. Member for Huntingdon's speech on his ten-minute Bill yesterday, but I am sure that I shall read it with great delight in Hansard and see that he failed to make the references that my hon. Friend mentioned. Mr. Djanogly: The last time the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan) made a personal remark, I ignored it, but this time I shall put him right. I specifically mentioned the impact of gold-plating European regulations on employees. He can look in today's Hansard to confirm that. The Chairman: Order. That is enough of yesterday's ten-minute Bill. Mr. Sutcliffe: I am sorry for diverting us down a path along which none of wish to go. The category of worker is clear and refers to those who are involved in the industrial action. The union must provide that information to the employer, so that people are clear and so that no one can take advantage of it. The information that is necessary is clear. The clause gives that clarity and affords the opportunity to reduce the administrative burden. That was the original intention behind the 1999 Act, but the way we administered it meant that it did not work out. I see nothing underhand that the employer would take issue with. It is clear what information is expected. The fears expressed by Opposition Members are in line with their fears about the Bill, and I would not be able to convince them if we were to stay here until Christmas day. Column Number: 087 Mr. Djanogly: I will not dispute what the Minister has said. However, will he clarify whether he has received any representations from employers on the issue? He has not laid out whether he has, or what their position was. Can he also clarify the meaning of clause 17(4)(2E)(b)? It reads:
Can he give an example of when that would be put into practice? Why is that provision needed? Mr. Sutcliffe: I will have to write to the hon. Gentleman to explain the detail of that process. It is nothing underhand. It is to ensure that everyone involved has the opportunity to be involved. The hon. Gentleman asked about representations from employers. A number of employers submitted their views throughout the review of the 1999 Act, as I mentioned at the start of discussions on Tuesday morning. There were no specific concerns about that aspect of the Act. Question put and agreed to. Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2004 | Prepared 5 February 2004 |
