| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. McCartney: The amendments fall into several small groups, which effect minor improvements to the schedule.
Amendments Nos. 33, 100 and 209 are identical corrections to the wording of the schedule to reflect the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. The meaning of the schedule is unchanged in each case.
Amendments Nos. 34, 101 and 210 alter the power to change the 21-workers threshold for recognition. They allow the Secretary of State to make transitional arrangements and, more important, to apply the change in all three parts of the schedule in which it appears. Without the amendments, only paragraph 6 could be altered.
Amendments Nos. 113, 145 and 147 slightly increase the standard of proof required for a successful application under part III to change the bargaining unit from "prima facie evidence" to being "likely" that the original unit was not appropriate.
Amendments Nos. 274 and 275 removes references to a worker's breach of contract from the provisions on detriment and dismissal connected with recognition in part VIII of the Bill. The amendments are not intended to allow workers to breach their contracts in pursuit of union recognition, but are aimed at preventing employers from circumventing the protections for workers from detriment or dismissal arising from campaigning on recognition.
The amendments solve another potential problem. In providing that actions in breach of contract are not protected, the schedule is currently different from other detriment and dismissal provisions--in section 44 of the
Employment Rights Act 1996, for example--because those provisions do not contain any mention of breach of contract. Retaining the Bill's existing text might be taken to imply that a worker is always protected under other similar provisions when he acts in breach of contract. Again, that is obviously not desirable.
Amendments Nos. 274 and 275 would continue to protect a worker from detriment or dismissal provided that the worker's action is not unreasonable. In most cases, it will be unreasonable for a worker to break his or her contract, but not, of course, when the employer has written in clauses making the actions protected by the provisions--such as campaigning for or against recognition--a breach of contract. It would not be sensible to allow such clauses to be written in.
I therefore do not believe that the change represents a substantial alteration of the provisions. The change does, however, reduce the risk of their circumvention by unscrupulous employers, and of unintended consequences on other legislation. On that basis, I hope that the House will agree that the change is desirable.
I should now like to speak to even more technical amendments. Amendment No. 75 allows for the possibility of more than one union being recognised jointly for a bargaining unit. Amendments Nos. 78, 276 and 277 insert missed or consequential cross-references, whereas amendment No. 88 is for clarity; amendments Nos. 108 and 149 are grammatical; and amendment No. 111 ensures consistent terminology. For additional clarity, amendments Nos. 128, 215, 216, 234, 235, 252, 256, 257 and 259 remove superfluous words. Amendment No. 208 corrects a cross-reference; and amendment No. 225 corrects another.
Finally, for the avoidance of doubt, amendment No. 279 requires the CAC to give notice of its declarations to the parties.
Mr. Collins:
As the Minister said, this group of amendments is largely a technical one. I shall therefore confine myself to asking the Minister two questions.
First, the Minister mentioned the Government's proposal to "increase slightly" the required standard of proof in provisions on bargaining units. Will he explain to hon. Members who are not lawyers the reason behind the Government's decision to increase slightly the standard of proof?
Secondly, the Minister mentioned amendments dealing with the possibility of recognition of more than one trade union in a bargaining unit. Will he tell the House the Government's general attitude to the general desirability, or otherwise, of more than one trade union being recognised within a bargaining unit? He will know that it is often thought that one of the keys to Germany's success since the second world war has been a strong governmental imperative favouring single union recognition in specific industrial blocs. I should be very interested to know the Government's view on whether such a change is felt to be desirable, or whether it should be a matter purely for the bargaining partners themselves.
Mr. McCartney:
In such matters, the burden of proof falls not only on employers, but employees. If there is a request for a change in bargaining units, it is only
Where there are long-standing arrangements involving more than one union--and where an employer is happy with that--we do not want to disturb them. However, where there is the potential for disagreement, we will have in law a means by which people can come forward for recognition. The proposal provides a right, changes the culture and makes clear to the unions and others concerned that the CAC will not deal with issues where a dispute arises between unions over recognition. It is for them to resolve those disputes. Until they do, they will not be able to secure an agreement.
Where there is an agreement--and where it is fair and reasonable for more than one union to make a proposal--we will allow the process to continue. On green-field sites, for example, it would seem reasonable that, where an application for the bargaining unit comes in--and there has been no history of any arrangement--the CAC should request the employer to make known whether he agrees or otherwise with the proposed bargaining units. Where there is not an agreement, the CAC will seek advice and evidence before it makes a determination about the bargaining unit, including whether it should relate to single table bargaining or not.
All of the circumstances that we can think of are covered by the proposals. The point made by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale was well made. The Government have been at pains to try to ensure that the proposals are about facilitating good employment relations and preventing disputes from arising. Where disputes arise, we will have a mechanism to deal with them. We want to try to ensure that good, modern employment relations do not lead to a situation where disputes arise. Where disputes do arise between unions, they will not be able to use the procedure.
Lords amendment agreed to.
Lords amendment No. 34 agreed to.
Lords amendment: No. 35, in page 18, line 40, leave out ("in the second period")
Mr. Ian McCartney:
I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 36, 37, 39, 40, 42 to 44, 46, 47, 49 to 52, 64, 66, 70, 71, 76, 77, 80 to 84, 86, 87, 91 to 99, 102 to 104, 106, 112, 120, 155, 173, 175,
Mr. McCartney:
The Government's amendments deal with the procedures for derecognition. Amendments. Nos. 201 to 204, 206, 207, 211, 212, 214, 217, 218 and 220 to 223 deal with applications for derecognition by an employer on the grounds of having fewer than 21 workers. Most of them are simple clarifications of the procedure. Amendment No. 201, for example, clarifies the way in which an employer must apply, in keeping with changes to part III.
Amendment No. 203 clarifies the time in which the application must be made. If an employer believes that he or she has fewer than 21 workers over a 13-week period, an application for derecognition must be made within five working days of the 13 weeks ending. Amendment No. 211 requires the CAC to decide whether an application from an employer is valid before the union is allowed to challenge it. Obviously, if the application is invalid, there is no need to involve the union. Most of the other amendments are equally technical.
Amendment No. 217 is a substantive change, which requires the CAC to reject an application for derecognition if it is made within three years of another application for derecognition of the bargaining unit which the CAC rejected. This reflects the statement in the "Fairness at Work" White Paper that
Turning to an employer's request for derecognition, amendments Nos. 226 to 230, 232, 233 and 236 to 240 are simplifications and modest improvements to the procedure.
Amendments Nos. 228, 229, 232 and 233 are equivalent to amendments Nos. 35 to 37, 39 and 40, to which I have already spoken. Together, they consolidate the two negotiation periods in paragraphs 80 and 81. At present, the union has a first period of 10 working days to respond to a request for derecognition, and if it agrees to negotiate there is a second period of 20 working days for negotiation.
Amendment No. 233 ensures, for consistency with part I, that failure to respond to an application within 10 working days is treated as rejection of the application. Amendments Nos. 237, 239 and 240 require the response and negotiation process to have taken place.
"the CAC will not entertain an application for derecognition within three years of . . . an unsuccessful request for derecognition".
This is a logical complement to the three-year bar on applications for recognition after an unsuccessful application, and will promote stability in industrial relations.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |