| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Djanogly: Injunctions have probably saved an enormous amount of time and cost for all parties concerned. New clause 9 would allow a strike to go ahead and its rights and wrongs to be considered later. That would be a recipe for mayhem, albeit legal mayhem, and would involve enormous costs probably the bankrupting of unions with very little being achieved.
I take it that, however long a strike lasted, workers' rights would be fully protected, presumably even if the company went into insolvency as a result. New clauses 12 and 13 would give a right to strike on the broadest possible terms. I think that they technically maintain the difference between official and unofficial action, but the concepts are merged to such an extent that there is little difference between them. Given that the ballot could be undertaken by the union with no one except its own members able to complain to the courts about the ballot process, I do not see how it would be meaningful at all.
Having briefly addressed the new clauses, I can safely say that I am not in favour of any of them.
Hywel Williams (Caernarfon) (PC): I rise to speak briefly about the experience of my constituents involved in the Friction Dynamics strike, to which the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) referred earlier. I shall not go into the details of the strike, but it pointed up the weaknesses of current legislation, especially the eight-week rule. At an earlier stage, I welcomed clause 21 as a partial answer, and the extension period in relation to lockouts is certainly welcome. However, I suspect that if clause 21 is passed, bad employers will continue in their intransigence up to and beyond a period of 16 weeks. If that had happened in the case in my constituency, I presume that my constituents would still be picketing today, three years after the start of their strike.
I tend to think that the abolition of the eight-week rule would encourage bad employers to come to the table, which is what good employers do anyway. No commercial undertaking wants to extend a strike unless it has a particular motivation for doing so, as we saw in the case of Friction Dynamics. As I said, where there is no lockout, the eight-week rule will still apply. Had Friction Dynamics' management played their cards rather more carefully, the strike would have continued and they would not have been found guilty by an industrial tribunal. So the situation would have been the same as before the various discussions that took place about the Friction Dynamics strike. Plaid Cymru's position remains the same: if a strike is lawful for eight weeks, we see no reason why the protection should not be applied during the ninth and further weeks, and we regard the Employment Relations Act 1999 as a compromise that needs to be looked at again.
Mr. Sutcliffe: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for the brevity with which he spoke to the new clauses and
amendments, notwithstanding the seriousness of the issues that he raised. I am grateful to him for recognising that time is against us.This is a large group of new clauses and amendments that would radically change the law on industrial action, and the law on the consequences to the individual of taking industrial action. As my hon. Friends have said, the amendments would rewrite the law on industrial action. At a stroke, they would delete virtually all of part 5 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, substituting it with a few new sections that provide rights to trade unions and their members, but which systematically ignore the interests of employers and society at large.
I do not intend to address the detail of the new clauses and amendments as we have little time. Instead, I shall address the more fundamental question that my hon. Friend is really asking me to address: whether a total reworking of these provisions is required. This body of law was mainly constructed during the 1980s, but its basic principles have been in place for a great deal longer. We know that unions resisted these changes when they were introduced. Some resented the interference in their internal affairs and the resulting democratisation of their decision-making procedures; many resented the more limited immunities against legal action that were introduced. However, unions have generally learned to live with the provisions. Their members have benefited from the greater control over their unions' decisions that the law has required. Employers have benefited from knowing that they cannot be dragged into industrial disputes that have nothing to do with them; and, more generally, society has benefited from less widespread and less damaging industrial action.
The new clauses and amendments seek to take us back to the days of the 1960s and 1970s, when strikes significantly damaged our economy and the way in which we lived. They would reintroduce an entitlement to take secondary action, and would encourage wildcat strikes and other forms of damaging unofficial action. We want to frame the law in a way that deals with the realities of today's labour market, so it would be a profound mistake to turn the clock back. For these reasons, the Labour party made it plain in its 1997 manifesto that it would retain the key elements of the changes introduced in the 1980s. We will honour that commitment.
Some might argue that the current law is imbalanced and puts unions in an impossibly weak position vis-á-vis the employer; I do not believe that that is the case. If that were so, employers would never deal with unions or choose to settle their disputes with them voluntarily. The evidence suggests that the strike weapon remains a potent one if union members really support it. Only in a minority of cases is a successful vote in favour of industrial action actually followed by a strike or another form of industrial action. Employers prefer to resolve their differences voluntarily, rather than incurring the cost and disruption of industrial action.
My hon. Friend pointed to the International Labour Organisation's conventions and similar international instruments. It is fashionable in some quarters to interpret our international obligations in this area in the widest possible way. The truth is that the various treaties are drafted in very general terms and are capable of a
wide range of interpretations. Those interpretations vary with each member state's industrial relations practices and traditions. Although it is true that some ILO advisory bodies have criticised our law on industrial action, we have always tried to answer those criticisms with reasoned arguments. We are convinced that we comply with our international obligations. The ILO gives due regard to our opinions, and understands that it is perfectly possible for different parties to interpret in good faith the implications of its conventions in different ways. As a result, the ILO's governing body has never formally reprimanded us for failing to comply with key conventions 87 and 98. Our standing with the ILO is as high as ever.New clauses 11 and 17 and amendment No. 10 deal with the consequences for individuals of taking industrial action. New clause 10 and amendment No. 10 would delete the provisions in the Bill that strengthen the protection for employees taking lawfully organised, official industrial action. In their place, new clause 11 introduces an entirely new protective regime.
8.45 pm
The basic aim of the new clause is to ensure that the protection is indefinite. We have already debated that issue many times, during our consideration of the Bill and during the passage of the Employment Relations Act 1999. Indeed, the issue was looked at in detail during our review of that Act. Our position is that we need to put a time limit on the period during which it is automatically unfair to dismiss someone taking industrial action. In industrial action law, we need to balance the legitimate interests of the employer and those of union members. That might not immediately appeal to my hon. Friend, but the Government want to create a fair regime for all interested parties and not just for one. Eight weeks is, in our judgment, a fair period. It covers the overwhelming majority of stoppages, 98 per cent. of which are dealt with within that period.
The case of Friction Dynamics was mentioned by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams), who supported us in Committee by recognising that we were tidying up the position on lock-out days and by accepting that we were asking both sides to take reasonable steps to resolve the dispute. We wanted to toughen up the position so that a Friction Dynamics situation could not happen again: both sides would have to prove that they tried reasonably to resolve the dispute. The action that took place has been condemned on both sides of the House.
The Bill will strengthen the protections introduced in the 1999 Act in a targeted way that will resolve problems that have arisen in practice. The provisions may not meet everyone's aspirations in the union movement, but I believe that they are generally seen as an advance.
New clause 17 places limits on the deductions from pay that employers may make when their employees take industrial action. That issue arose in the tertiary education sector, where the unions believe that employers made excessively large deductions. I think I am right in saying that the issue has not affected many other sectors, so it is not a matter that was highlighted in the representations that we received in preparing the Bill or during the review of the Employment Relations Act.
I am not yet convinced that the issues need to be specifically addressed in industrial action law. Of course, there are already entitlements for workers to complain to employment tribunals about unauthorised deductions from pay. I hope that those existing protections would help the workers concerned in those cases, although I recognise that the breach of contract that occurs when workers take industrial action might complicate the position.
The new clause contains a simple rule of thumb for deductions, but I am not sure that it provides the right answer. For example, there may be a legitimate case for employers to make some proportionate reduction to holiday pay or to make some adjustment to the calculation of an employee's length of service for pension purposes.
In conclusion, I am not yet convinced that there is a problem that needs to be dealt with or, if there is, that new clause 17 provides the right solution. However, I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend if he believes that it is a sufficiently serious issue.
For reasons that I have explained, I do not wish to speak to the amendments in any further detail. Unfortunately, I find myself in agreement with many of the comments made by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly), which is an unusual occurrence in this place. I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw his new clause.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |