|
Mr. Sutcliffe: I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with those details and ensure that I hand-deliver the letter.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
Column Number: 236
New clause 9
Applications no longer to be made to
Employment Appeal Tribunal
'(1) Section 67 of the 1992 Act (compensation for infringement of right not to be unjustifiably disciplined) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (6).
(2) In subsection (1) after ''application'' insert ''to an employment tribunal''.
(3) Omit subsections (2) and (4).
(4) In subsections (5) and (7) omit ''Employment Appeal Tribunal or''.
(5) In subsection (8) omit the words after paragraph (b).
(6) After that subsection insert—
''(8A) If on the date on which the application was made—
(a) the determination infringing the applicant's right not to be unjustifiably disciplined has not been revoked, or
(b) the union has failed to take all the steps necessary for securing the reversal of anything done for the purpose of giving effect to the determination,
the amount of compensation shall be not less than the amount for the time being specified in section 176(6A).''
(7) Section 176 of the 1992 Act (remedies for exclusion or expulsion from trade union) is also amended in accordance with subsections (8) to (11).
(8) In subsection (2)—
(a) after ''an application'' insert ''to an employment tribunal''; and
(b) omit the second sentence.
(9) In subsection (4) omit ''or the Employment Appeal Tribunal''.
(10) In subsection (5) omit ''or Employment Appeal Tribunal''.
(11) In subsection (6) omit the words after paragraph (b).'.
—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New clause 4
Unofficial industrial action
'(1) Section 237 of the 1992 Act (dismissal of those taking part in unofficial industrial action) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (2) there is inserted—
''(2A) The Secretary of State shall make appropriate arrangements for the provision of penalties to be incurred by an employee who takes part in an unofficial strike or other unofficial action when a member of a trade union and the trade union when it is considered not to have acted in a manner appropriate to the discouragement of the unofficial strike or action.
(2B) The Secretary of State shall consult such persons as he considers appropriate on the form penalties will take and shall publish the responses received pursuant to those consultations.''.'.—[Brian Cotter.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Brian Cotter (Weston-super-Mare) (LD): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), who cannot be here today. Earlier, the Minister said that the employment relations environment was pretty good, and obviously we very much welcome that. I hope that, in that spirit, hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will welcome the fact that my colleague and I tabled the new clause to rehearse a concern that is on the horizon or,
Column Number: 237
perhaps, closer than the horizon. We raise the issue in the spirit of ensuring that employment relations continue to be based in a good way and to be good.
Part 2 of the Bill relates to industrial action and is essentially about clarifying the requirements for conducting ballots and issuing notices to employers with regard to official strike action. Part 3 strengthens unfair dismissal protection for striking workers in cases in which they are locked out, as happened in the Friction Dynamics case, to which the Committee has already been referred.
All that is welcome when it comes to clarifying workers' rights and setting out the position of employers. However, one key area that the Bill fails to address is the increasing problem of unofficial strikes. Last week, Royal Mail revealed that it is unlikely to meet its end-of-year targets for delivering letters on time. It is important that post is delivered on time, particularly for small firms receiving cheques. The recent postal action may have a great impact on small firms. Having run a small firm, I know that one can be in a tight situation, just waiting for that cheque to come in to enable one to pay someone else.
There has been much concern about that issue. I asked the Department of Trade and Industry about it, but I believe that the answer stated that there is not enough evidence. Clearly, there is anecdotal evidence that a strike such as that at Royal Mail can have a big impact. That strike was disastrous for the public and businesses, both of which rely on Royal Mail. If a business is delayed in banking a cheque, it can be a big problem. That should be of great concern to us. As I said, I did not get a sufficient answer to my question to the DTI.
Unfortunately, last autumn's strike was not an isolated incident but may be part of a trend. It is worrying that the number of unofficial strikes over the last decade has risen. As Dr. Gregor Gall of the university of Stirling recently pointed out in an editorial letter to The Guardian, while overall strike activity has fallen by around 80 per cent. since 1979, which we all welcome and which is probably the basis of the Minister's comments, overall, unofficial strike activity has fallen by about 40 per cent. Obviously, those figures have not fallen by the same degree. Since 1991, the percentage contributed by unofficial strikes, in terms of strike frequency, has grown—so the proportion of unofficial strikes has grown.
Only when there was a rash of high-profile unofficial strikes at the end of last year was that issue highlighted, although it has been going on for more than a decade. The cycle started in late July 2003 when British Airways check-in staff at Heathrow went on strike to protest against BA's plans to introduce a swipe-card system to record what time staff began and finished work. Not only did that strike affect as many as 100,000 members of the public, but it cost BA £40 million. There was also the postal strike, to which I have referred, and action by fire service personnel. Although the Fire Brigades Union did not publicly condone the strikes by its members, its general secretary, Andy Gilchrist, tried to explain the reasons behind the strike and said that union members were extremely angry at their 7 per cent.
Column Number: 238
pay rise. That is another example of a wildcat-type strike.
Mr. Bill Tynan (Hamilton, South) (Lab): Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there are measures in place that can be used when unofficial action takes place? For example, funds can be sequestrated from the union, and members who strike unofficially can be dismissed. What measures does the new clause contain that are not already in place?
Brian Cotter: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, to which I will return shortly. There are such measures in place, but, unfortunately—and one of my intentions in tabling the new clause was to highlight this fact—such actions were not necessarily taken during the recent strikes.
In the royal commission chaired by Lord Donovan in 1968, unofficial strikes were described as being mainly sporadic and very short, yet at the same time very effective because they provoke an immediate reaction from the officials or the employers. In addition, only a handful of unofficial strikers have been sacked under the Employment Act 1990, and it is debatable how effective current regulations are. I say again to the Minister and colleagues that they might welcome that the environment for employment relations is very good but the purpose of this new clause is to highlight the concern on the horizon. We have had two or three high-profile unofficial strikes in recent times. It is something with which we need to be concerned, because it can be damaging not just to the general public and to individual firms, but to the whole climate between employers and the trade unions.
Mr. Djanogly: While not exactly concurring with the wording of the proposed new clause, there is much sense in it. One of the bizarre facts mentioned by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Brian Cotter) was that the more powers the unions have received under this Government, the more employee regulations—the weighing down on companies—and the more unofficial industrial actions there have been in recent years.
One of the problems I have with the new clause is that the proposal is for the Secretary of State to be in the driving seat, providing for penalties and so forth. We have a Secretary of State who, during the recent unofficial post strike, sat on the fence and refused consistently to come out and say that the unofficial strikers were wrong. Therefore, I would be highly dubious of giving her the powers to curtail the action.
Mr. John Lyons (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab): Subsection (2A) of the new clause really shifts the emphasis back from trade unionists holding responsibility—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan)—to individual members of trade unions being held responsible. That would be a dangerous mistake, because all of us agree that there has been a great change in industrial relations. The partnership is working well. Agreeing to the new clause would reverse some of that.
Under the new clause, first, employees will be held responsible as individuals, not the trade unions—that has been working well in my opinion. Furthermore, it
Column Number: 239
will need to be decided what penalty to take against an individual who refuses to comply. One of the great lessons of industrial relations in this country, and the Conservative party learned it very quickly in the 1970s, is that it is pointless trying to take action against individuals. One ends up jailing dockers, the country starts coming to a halt and one needs to bring them back out again. The National Industrial Relations Court and other legislation at that time recognised all that. It was a waste of time. No progress could be made at all. It was one of the strengths of the Conservative party at that time that it understood that lesson very quickly and changed the law for that reason.
The new clause would reverse all that and put back the responsibility on the individual. It will fail; it would be a waste of time. One would need to deal very seriously with the matter if someone refused to comply. Under the new clause, industrial relations would worsen, and the record and climate would worsen. Trade unions would be able to say, ''It is all about the individual, it is not about us.'' In law, the trade unions are now held responsible. That should continue. That makes progress. Anything other than that will turn the clock back and worsen industrial relations.
10.45 pm
|
