HC Deb 01 July 1915 vol 72 cc1956-63

(1) If any difference exists or is apprehended between any employer and persons employed, or between any two or more classes of persons employed, and the difference is one to which this Act applies, that difference, if not determined by the parties directly concerned or their representatives or under existing agreements, may be reported to the Board of Trade, by or on behalf of either party to the difference.

(2) The Board of Trade shall consider any difference so reported and take any steps which seem to them expedient to promote a settlement of the difference, and, in any case in which they think fit, may refer the matter for settlement either in accordance with the provisions of the First Schedule to this Act, or, if suitable means for settlement already exist in pursuance of any agreement between employers and persons employed, for settlement in accordance with those means.

(3) The award on any such settlement shall be binding both on employers and employed and may be retrospective; and if any employer, or person employed, acts in contravention of, or fails to comply with, the award, he shall be guilty of an offence under this act.

Mr. LOUGH

I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "or is apprehended" ["If any difference exists or is apprehended"].

I wish to thank the Minister of Munitions for the attention he has given to these Amendments since the Second Reading of the Bill. I had the pleasure of meeting him in his room with other Members to discuss many of the Amendments which we had put on the Paper, and if he did not entirely meet the objections we had in some cases, certainly no exception can be found to the spirit in which he approached the discussion. I am quite sure that the conversation we had will greatly facilitate the discussion to-day. The object I had in moving this Amendment was that it seemed to me that the Clause was rather wider than my right hon. Friend might think necessary in several respects. The first words of the Bill are a little startling. It says, "If any difference exists or is apprehended." It is rather severe to legislate about apprehension. It raises the question apprehensions of whom, what sort of apprehensions and whether some qualification ought not to be introduced. It seems to me that the words of the Bill would afford facilities for causing friction and giving trouble which would not exist if those words were knocked out.

The MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Lloyd George)

My right hon. Friend is light in substance, and yet I cannot accept his Amendment, and I think he will agree with me when I give him the reason why. If the Bill had no reference at all to Bills of a similar character which had been passed before it would have been quite unnecessary to use the words, but unfortunately these words are used in the Conciliation Bill, which deals with the settlement of disputes. If we left the words out here it might be said "there is a difference between a dispute that exists and a dispute which is apprehended, and it is intended here that it should only apply to disputes which have actually arisen, that is when there is an actual strike, and it ought not to refer to a case where you are on the brink of a strike." My right hon. Friend will agree that it is very much better that you should stop a strike before it arises than that you should deal with it after it has actually occurred.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. KING

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "this" ["one to which this Act applies"] to insert the words, "Part of this." It is quite evident that the words have simply slipped out, as anyone can see.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I accept the Amendment.

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Mr. LOUGH

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "or on behalf" ["by or on behalf of either party"].

I formally move this to ask if the same reason applies; if so, I shall not persevere with it. It seems to me that this power of going to the Board of Trade on behalf of someone is a rather wide power, and it I might be sufficient for the parties to the dispute to go to the Board of Trade.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

The reason for the inclusion of these words is that we do not want to exercise these powers if by the old method we are able to settle the dispute, and if the machinery of the Board of Trade is able to accomplish the end without any reference to new powers of this character. I think my right hon. Friend will agree that it is very much better that that should take place.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. KING

I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "difference" ["promote a settlement of the difference"] to insert the words "or to prevent the difference actually arising, as the case may be."

I think this Amendment is necessary because the words in the Clause, "promote a settlement of the difference," hardly cover a difference which does not exist but which is apprehended. We have got apprehended differences already in, and I think the words I propose make it quite clear.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

Of course, if we could prevent differences arising it would be very satisfactory, but I am afraid it is quite impossible to prevent differences, whether between labour and capital or in politics. I am afraid my hon. Friend is asking something which is quite beyond the power even of this Bill, and I hope he will not press it. The original words were "difference exists or is apprehended." That really goes as far as we possibly can.

Mr. KING

I will withdraw, though it is not often that a Minister of Munitions refuses extra powers which are offered him.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Further Amendment made: After the word "if" ["if suitable means for settlement already exist"] insert the words "in their opinion."—[Mr. King.]

Mr. KING

I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), at the end, to add— (3) Where a matter is referred under the last foregoing Sub-section for settlement otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the First Schedule to this Act, and the settlement is in the opinion of the Board of Trade unduly delayed, the Board may annul the reference and substitute therefor a reference in accordance with the provisions of the said Schedule. The Minister of Munitions is so very reasonable that no doubt he will accept this, too.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I think this is an improvement on the Bill. There are several Amendments down in the names of some of my hon. Friends below the Gangway intended to accomplish the same purpose and to prevent any unnecessary delay occurring in bringing the matter to the point. It is a speeding-up Amendment, and it is a better way of meeting the particular point my hon. Friend wishes to deal with than the way they have suggested in their Amendments; therefore I accept this.

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Mr. WATT

I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), after the word "employed" ["binding both on employers and employed"], to insert the word "thereafter." The Committee will notice that the right is to be retrospective, and the effect of the insertion of the word "thereafter" will be conclusive.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I think this is important, and I accept the Amendment.

Question, "That the word 'thereafter' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Mr. KING

I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), after the word "shall" ["or fails to comply with, the award, he shall"], to insert the words ("without prejudice to any liability to any civil proceeding in respect of such contravention or failure, as the case may be"). It seems to me that the Clause as it stands in regard to penal proceedings under this Section prejudices the right of the employed person to get recovery in the County Court or otherwise for any wages due to him. I think that is so, and therefore I propose to insert the words given in my Amendment.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

Perhaps I had better read the note I have on this Amendment. "It is at least harmless, and may be accepted."

Mr. HODGE

I hope the Minister of Munitions will not do that. I think that they are dangerous words, and, so far as we are concerned on these benches, we shall certainly oppose their insertion, because under the Munitions Tribunal the man will be dealt with, and if you are going to leave the employer the opportunity of taking the man before a civil Court the man may be punished twice for one offence. That is the reason why I am opposed to this Amendment.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I think my hon. Friend (Mr. Hodge) for the first time is mistaken. It is rather a question of the workman having his civil right. He may have been dismissed, for instance. I think he ought to have his civil right. This preserves his right to civil proceedings against his employer, and he should not be deprived of that. As a matter of fact, he would not be. This is not a criminal proceeding, and even without the insertion of these words he would have his civil right; but, in order to make it absolutely clear, I am prepared to accept the Amendment. I do not think the words make any difference; the words are quite harmless because they are unnecessary, but we want to safeguard the rights of the worker where he has been dismissed.

Mr. HODGE

If they are unnecessary, why insert them?

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

I think the hon. Member (Mr. Hodge) is right. If you read the Bill, Sub-section (3) states:— The award on any such settlement shall be binding both on employers and employed and may be retrospective; and if any employer, or person employed, acts in contravention of, or fails to comply with, the award, he shall be guilty of an offence under this Act. That means either the employer or the person employed. The hon. Member is perfectly right in saying that the person employed would be liable to be brought up before the Munitions Tribunal, and also equally liable to be brought up before the County Court for contravention of the award.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

So would the employer.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

I agree. I have no particular interest in it, but I think the hon. Member for Gorton is perfectly right when he says that this Amendment does place a further liability on the employed person. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, No!"] I think it does.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

Does the hon. Gentleman really suggest that, if these words are not here there will be any interference of any sort with the statutory right either of the employer or the employed? This Bill does not interfere with anything of that kind. As I have said, the words of the Amendment are quite unnecessary, and, if there is any objection to them, I am sure my hon. Friend does not wish to press them.

Mr. KING

I do not wish to create any discord. I thought I was doing a good thing for the workman. Of course, if he does not like it, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The CHAIRMAN

The next Amendment, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington (Mr. Lough), seems to me to negative what we have already passed in the Clause. [At the end of the Clause to add the words, "provided that no employer and no workman shall be required to enter into a new contract of service after the expiration of the contract then current."—[Mr. Lough.]

Mr. LOUGH

It does not appear to me to be quite so. I think the matter is one of some substance. With great respect, Sir, I think that the Clause deals with differences which may arise during any contract of service, and I suggest that if the workman has finished his contract of service or the time for which his master has employed him has expired, and if there is any difference about that, and if the Clause that we have passed could be stretched to remove any restraint in regard to new service, it would be rather unfair to the workmen to stretch it unduly.

The CHAIRMAN

It seems to me that this Amendment, and the Amendment of the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Anderson), as I read them, would, if inserted, really negative the whole Clause. [Amendment, to add at the end of the Clause the words, "Provided that nothing herein contained shall require any employer or any person employed to enter into a new contract of service after the expiration of the term of the contract current at the date of such award, or to require any such person to refrain from giving whatever notice may legally be required for the termination of such contract of service; and no person employed shall be guilty of any offence merely by giving such notice or by refusing to continue in employment beyond the term for which he has contracted to serve."—[Mr. Anderson.]

Mr. ANDERSON

With all respect, I submit that this does not negative the Clause and is not a destructive Amend- ment. We want to find out what is the right of individual contract. This Clause puts very drastic restrictions upon the right of a number of people to adopt collective action by means of a strike. Is there any right for an individual workman, when he gives in his notice, to work his notice and leave, apart from the restrictions that are proposed later on in regard to controlled establishments? This Section does not refer to controlled establishments, but may refer to work outside controlled establishments. Is the right of individual contract under which a workman can give a week's notice or a fortnight's notice, and leave at the end of that time, abolished? Now, in regard to inside controlled establishments, if a man gives a week's notice and works on and leaves at the end of that time, we know that the employer can withhold his certificate, and, under the Bill, if it is passed as it stands, he can be kept out of work for six weeks. Would an action lie against him in addition to that for breach of contract? I think it is very important, and I should like to have a statement on the matter from the Minister of Munitions.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

It is quite clear that if this particular Amendment, or the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Mr. Anderson), were inserted, the whole of this provision will be nugatory. The employer will simply have to say, "I am not going to lock out the men; I will give a week's notice that I am not going to renew the contract." At the end of the week he does not renew the contract, and the result is he locks out the whole of his men. He will say, "Oh, I am not locking out the men, I am saying, under the Amendment of the hon. Member for Attercliffe, that I will not renew the contract, and I have the authority of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Attercliffe for what I am doing." The same thing would apply to the men. Instead of working on they could say, "We are simply giving a week's notice that we will not renew the contract." If it is a question of the individual, this Bill does not interfere with the action of the individual, in so far as the later Clause is concerned, which has been referred to by the hon. Member for Attercliffe. In regard to an individual who wants to leave for ill-health or other reasons there is no interference. The question is, whether the thing is of such a collective character as to assume the form of a strike or lock-out. That is the point. If this Amendment is inserted the whole of the workmen can give notice and say, "We do not propose to renew our contract," and the same thing would apply to the employers. As I have said, it would negative the whole Clause.

The CHAIRMAN

That is how the matter appears to me. Of course, if the hon. Member (Mr. Anderson) or the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lough) desire to do so, they are quite entitled to raise the point on the question that the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. ANDERSON

We wanted the statement that we have now obtained in regard to the right of the individual, because the workman will know that there are penalties under certain circumstances if he leaves his work, and he has a right to know when he is free to leave his work without any question of criminal proceedings.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

It is a question of collective action.

Mr. ANDERSON

I am not speaking of any collective action or of any strike, but purely of individual action.

Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

4.0 P.M.

Mr. LOUGH

I am glad that this matter has been settled by my right hon. Friend. What I was afraid of was that this Clause might be of general application. I never had any desire in any way to delay my right hon. Friend in getting the powers necessary for munitions, and other matters connected with the service of the War. But I was afraid that this Clause was drawn in such general terms that it might be quoted so as to interfere unduly with the liberty of workmen and of employers.

Question put, and agreed to.