| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Djanogly: I have given a couple of examples, and I have some more, but they can wait the GMB comes to mind.
I want to address the Government new clauses, and in particular new clauses 6 and 7, which are extremely complicated. My particular concern is that new clauses 6 and 7 cover not only intimidation, but the effect of intimidation. If there has been intimidation but it does not affect the ballot, it will be ignored by the new clauses, which is conceptually wrong. Indeed, there should be
disincentives to intimidation, and I cannot see how disincentives can be introduced unless intimidation has negative consequences.The second main point, which has been addressed previously, is that the Bill does not contain any remedies for intimidation, and I do not see how we can examine the effect of one without the other. Will the Minister at least clarify what the Government are thinking? Is the object to invalidate the ballot, not to allow the person or union that is doing the intimidation the chance to have a re-ballot or to punish the person who is doing the intimidation? Will the Government go down civil or criminal lines of remedy?
It is particularly unfortunate that new clauses 5 and 8 were tabled towards the end of last week, because they contain totally new concepts. The Government have at least said that they accept in principle the idea of an intimidation clause, but new clauses 5 and 8 have come out of the blue. The Minister should tell us why those new clauses have been introduced, because I can see no reason for them.
Mr. Sutcliffe: The debate has been interesting, and it clearly sets out the differences between the parties' attitudes towards employment relations and industrial relations. Intimidation, whether it is from unions or employers, will not be tolerated and we do not want to see it. As on Second Reading, my hon. Friends have exposed cases of intimidation, but Opposition Members have failed to come up with details of unions behaving badly.
The example that I gave of a union visiting workers' homes was raised with the Government by the CBI, which provided anecdotal evidence. It said that it could back up that claim, and we wait to see whether it can. The unions have given evidence to me and to the publication in the Library, which is available if hon. Members want to pick it up.
Mr. Tynan: Will my hon. Friend indicate the volume of evidence from the trade union against the volume of evidence from the CBI? I would be particularly interested to know what action was taken on intimidation in someone's home, which, as far as I am concerned, is a criminal offence, and I would have thought that criminal charges would have been brought.
Mr. Sutcliffe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whose background makes him well versed in such matters. I do not want to be drawn down the line of who did what, because intimidation from either side is unacceptable.
On giving notice of the new clauses, my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) and other hon. Members were in Committee when I said that the Government would introduce new clauses on intimidation and that the matter would be complex. As the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) says, we are trying to achieve a new attitude towards employment relations in the UK, and I think that he accepts that the Bill goes a long way to doing that. We are trying to move away from the existing adversarial culture to a culture in which people work together and understand the requirements of business. The trade unions play an increasingly large part in that process, which is evidenced by the number of FTSE 100 companies that are union organised, so the unions are generally a force for good.
On union recognition procedure, we would initially like to see more voluntary agreements. So far, there have been more than 1,000 voluntary agreements, and it is a step in the right direction when employers and employees come together and go down the voluntary route. The statutory procedure covers situations in which that cannot happen, and is included as a minimum standard. It is reasonable to expect and accept that the Government's role should be to facilitate the smooth running of the statutory procedure, which is why I have said throughout that we must examine intimidation.
In response to my opening remarks, the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) said that the Government new clauses are pretty reasonable, but then he told us why they are unreasonable, and he did not make the case.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien (Eddisbury) (Con): Scrutiny.
Mr. Sutcliffe: It seems to me that the spirit of scrutiny in Committee is different from the spirit of scrutiny on the Floor of the House perhaps that is because of this environment.
Mr. Djanogly: My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) was not on the Committee.
Mr. Sutcliffe: The hon. Gentleman says that his hon. Friend was not there. I would expect the Front Bench spokesperson to read about how the Committee developed and learn from interventions on both sides of the House about where we are going with employment relations and the new attitude that we are trying to achieve. As I said in response to the hon. Member for Gordon, the key purpose is to stop intimidation, whether on the union side or the employer side.
The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk asked whether an employer can be penalised if he takes action against a worker for attending a meeting organised by the union at a time when he should be working. When the union and the employer make an access agreement, they will set out how many meetings should take place, when and where they should take place, how long they will last and which workers are entitled to attend which meetings. The new clause makes it clear that an employer can be penalised only if he takes action against a worker for attending a meeting that that worker was entitled to attend. The CAC would have a role in stopping frivolous cases and would consider the circumstances and the reasonableness of the situation, but initially the union and the employer would set out what meetings should take place.
I was asked why an employer should not be allowed to attend a meeting with his staff held on his premises during working hours, because surely he has such a right. In many cases, unions are happy for employers to attend access meetings. Indeed, the code of practice on access makes it clear that, where possible, joint meetings can be beneficial. However, we must accept that in some cases workers will not want their employer to know that
they support a union's campaign. They might not even want their employer to know that they are going along to a meeting to find out about recognition. They may fear that their employer will brand them as disloyal if they do so, and may be afraid to ask the questions that they really want answered if the employer is there. Unfortunately, the evidence is that on occasion anti-union employers victimise union members and supporters. That is why it is important that meetings between the union and the workers in the bargaining unit should be private.
David Hamilton: Within that, there is a recognition that not employers, but management, attend union meetings along with workers because they are part of the structure. It is up to the local branch of the union to determine what is right. There are many thousands of cases where senior management attend meetings with the workers because they are part of that union.
Mr. Sutcliffe: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. In fact, I would advocate that, because that is where the case can be put freely as to the union's campaigning activities and the employer's view of those activities. It is likely that that relationship exists in most go-ahead companies that look to the future. Another crucial part of the Bill is the information and consultation directive, which opens up the opportunities for dialogue to take place and moves away from the adversarial situation.
The hon. Member for Gordon suggested that surely it is okay for the employer to ask how a meeting went. Clearly it is, if his question is reasonable. If he says, "Did the meeting go well?", that is acceptable and there is no problem, but he may go further to ask for the names of the workers who were there and details of how the meeting went. The CAC would question the motivation behind that.
I was asked to explain the definition of "undue influence." Undue influence is a concept borrowed from the Representation of the People Act 1983. It includes: the use of, or threat to use, force, violence or restraint; the infliction of, or threat to inflict, injury, damage, harm or loss; and the impediment of the free exercise of the vote by fraudulent device or contrivance. The term is designed to pick up a range of behaviours from violence and threats of violence to libellous statements. Whether a particular action constitutes undue influence will depend a great deal on the circumstances and manner in which it was taken and whether it was demonstrably intended to influence the ballot. The Government intend to bring forward a code of practice following consultation with interested parties to provide clear guidance to all the parties involved.
We have been very conscious of the need to ensure that the jurisdictions of the CAC and the employment tribunal should remain separate. That is why we took care to ensure that the question that each court will have to consider is different. If a worker suffers detriment or dismissal for supporting or opposing recognition, he or she may seek individual redress at the employment tribunal. The union may seek collective redress from the CAC if that dismissal or detriment changed or was likely to change voting behaviours.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |