HC Deb 30 July 1896 vol 43 cc1076-8

(1.) An employer shall not make any contract with any workman for any deduction from the gross sum contracted to he paid by the employer to the workman, or for any payment to the employer by the workman for or in respect of bad or negligent work or injury to the materials or other property of the employer, unless—

  1. (a) the contract is embodied in a printed notice affixed at the pit head or at the entrance of a factory or workshop, and in such parts of a mine, factory, or workshop as one of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Mines or Factories may direct or approve, and constantly kept so affixed in such a position that it can be easily read by the persons employed in the mine, factory, or workshop; or the contract is in writing, signed by the workman; and
  2. (b) the deduction or payment to be made under the contract does not exceed the actual or estimated damage or loss occasioned to the employer by the act or omission of the workman, or of some person over whom he has control, or for whom he has by the contract agreed to be responsible; and
  3. (c) the amount of the deduction or payment is fair and reasonable, having regard to all the circumstances of the case.

(2.) An employer shall not make any such deduction or receive any such payment unless—

  1. (a) the deduction or payment is made in pursuance of, or in accordance with, such a contract as aforesaid; and
  2. (b) particulars in writing showing the acts or omissions in respect of which the deduction or payment is made and the amount thereof are supplied to the workman on each occasion when a deduction or payment is made.
(3.) This section shall apply to the case of a shop assistant in like manner as it applies to the case of a workman.

Amendment proposed (27th July) in Paragraph (b), Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "actual or estimated."

Question proposed, "That the words 'actual or estimated' stand part of the Bill."

Debate resumed.

MR. REGINALD McKENNA (Monmouth, N.)

said that he would not proceed further with the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. JONATHAN SAMUEL (Stockton) moved the omission of Sub-section (3), in order to raise a very important question on the whole clause. The clause proposed to exempt employers who deducted from the wages of workmen the cost of the value of damaged goods. This was a new aspect of the Truck Laws. In the original Act of 1831, he did not find a reference to the power of employers to deduct for damaged goods, nor in the Act of 1887. There was no doubt of the fact that the law had decided that the employers had the right to deduct, but this clause and this sub-section carried the law very much further than was ever intended. He understood that the Home Secretary was legislating practically in favour of persons engaged in trade where the goods manufactured ranged from a penny to a sixpence and a shilling. But this Bill would refer and would control every trade throughout the United Kingdom. The heavy industries of the country would also be affected. Engineering, shipbuilding, iron moulders, joiners, iron and steel workers would be seriously affected by the clause. Those trades were paid more or less by piece work, and in the iron and steel trade the bulk of the workmen were paid by tonnage. Under this sub-section workmen would be liable to be fined in respect of damage done to goods in their hands. They might be made to pay the value of the goods in addition to the loss of wages which they would incur. Then, under this clause, a contractor would become responsible for every act or omission on the part of his workmen, and would be responsible for all goods that were damaged. The clause would have far-reaching effects. A man might be called upon to do some work on the spur of the moment, and not being used to it he might make a mistake and damage the goods. In these circumstances it would be cruel to charge him with the cost of the article. It was possible that a clause like this might cause the total suspension of some of our great industries. He begged to move that the sub-section be omitted.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,) Lancashire, Blackpool

said that the hon. Member was under a misapprehension as to the effect of the clause, The Bill did not purpose in any part of it to render legal anything that was not illegal. It was a limiting Bill. Conditions were to be imposed for the protection of the workmen, and to enable inspectors to discover the perpetration of anything which it was improper to do. The law was not carried a bit further by this clause, except so far as it was carried further in the interests of the workmen themselves. In cases where he was satisfied that the workmen in a particular industry did not require the additional protection which it was proposed to give, the Secretary of State would have a power of exemption. It would not be necessary to insist upon the application of provisions which the men themselves should deem unnecessary. The customs of trade would not be interfered with. The liability of workmen would not be increased, and they would have this protection, that a contract would be illegal unless it was fair and reasonable, having regard to all the aspects of the case. The intention and effect of the clause were exactly the opposite of what the hon. Member imagined, and therefore he trusted that the hon. Member would not press his Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 3,—