§ (1) A person shall not give employment to a workman, whose last previous employment has been on or in connection with munitions work in any establishment of a class to which the provisions of this Section are applied by Order of the Minister of Munitions, unless he holds a certificate from his last employer that he left work with the consent of his employer or a certificate from the munitions tribunal that the consent has been unreasonably withheld, or unless a period of six weeks, or such other period as may be provided by Order of the Minister of Munitions as respects any class of establishment, has elapsed since he left his last previous employment.
§ (2) If any workman complains to a munitions tribunal in accordance with rules made with respect to those tribunals that the consent of an employer has been unreasonably withheld that tribunal may, after examining into the case, if they think fit, grant a certificate which shall, for the purposes of this Section, have the same effect as a certificate from the employer.
§ (3) If any person gives employment in contravention of the provisions of this Section, he shall be guilty of an offence under this Act.
§ Mr. LOUGHI beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "person," to insert the words, "engaged in munition work."
This Clause prohibits the employment of persons who have left work in munition factories. As it is drawn it may inflict great hardship. There seems to be no provision whatever for the fact that quite innocently a person may give employment to someone who has left work in a munition factory. I think the real 2069 intention is to prevent one munition factory taking the men away from another munition factory. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is more than that!"] It means that someone may try improperly to draw men away from factories where they are wanted by the Government. I therefore propose this Amendment to make it read: "engaged in munition work." If you choose to put in any other words, I do not mind, but I do think that something ought to be fitted in to protect perfectly innocent people. A man leaves a munition factory. A woman to whom he applies employs him for a couple of days as a gardener, and you fine her £50. Something is wanted to protect her.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEIf this Amendment were inserted, the Clause would be absolutely nugatory. It would mean that a man making a profit out of private work would be left to kidnap a munition worker, whereas another man engaged on munitions work would not be allowed to do so.
§ Mr. LOUGHI will not argue with my right hon. Friend, but I do not think that he has in the least met my case.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. HUME-WILLIAMSI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words, "whose last previous employment has been," and to insert instead thereof the words, "who has within the last previous six weeks, or such other period as may be provided by order of the Minister of Munitions as respects any class of establishment, been employed."
The purport of the Sub-section, as I understand it, is to impose a prohibition upon the employer of a controlled factory so as to stop him employing a workman who has come from some other controlled factory. I venture to think that the Section does not quite carry that out.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. HUME-WILLIAMSThe object of the Amendment is to provide for the case, which I dare say might not happen, of a man leaving a munition factory and going to some other employment, say, for an intervening week or fortnight—[HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed!"]
§ Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
§ Words proposed there inserted.
2070§ Further Amendments made: In Sub-section (1) leave out the words "his last employer," and insert instead thereof the words "the employer by whom he was last so employed."
§ Leave out the words "or unless a period of six weeks, or such other period as may be provided by Order of the Minister of Munitions as respects any class of establishment, has elapsed since he left his last previous employment."—[Mr. Hume-Williams.]
§ Mr. LOUGHI beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words
"Provided that any workman who applies for a situation without informing the person or firm to whom he is applying that his last previous employment has been on or in connection with munitions work shall commit an offence under this Act."
A workman may come away improperly from a munition factory, and I cannot help thinking that a person may innocently employ him. I, therefore, put in this proviso. Really the public do want some protection in this direction. Men may leave a factory and go to a perfectly innocent person, who commits an offence under the Act quite unintentionally. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to accept this Amendment, not only on the basis on its inherent justice, but also in view of the fact that he has not accepted an Amendment from me for a long time.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThis rather changes the onus. The purport of this Clause was to cast the whole onus and responsibility upon the employer and to make him liable. In most of these cases it is the employer who is really responsible. I hope my right hon. Friend will not press the Amendment. I have certainly accepted a most serious Amendment for which he was responsible.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. HODGEI beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "workman" to insert the words "or his trade union representative."
This would permit a man to remain at work while his trade union representative conducted his case.
§ Amendment agreed to.
2071§ Mr. KINGI beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2)
(3) Where a Munitions Tribunal grant a certificate tinder the last foregoing Sub-section they may also direct the employer to pay to the workman such sum as compensation as they may think just, and the sum so ordered to be paid shall be a civil debt recoverable summarily."
This, I think, seems to be plainly needed. A workman might have been quite unjustly treated, and he may have been thrown out of work and have no redress. I hope this will be accepted. It only gives additional powers to the tribunal.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe workman is still employed. The refusal is to allow him to leave his employment, and it is against that that he appeals. There is, therefore, no need for this Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. HODGEI beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to add,
"Any person who is employed working in or about a controlled establishment on munitions work shall not discharge or suspend any such workman without the previous consent of the Munitions Tribunal."
We think that when a man is forced to remain in a controlled establishment that he ought not to be dismissed.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThis is a rather dangerous Amendment. On the face of it it appears very plausible, but my hon. Friend, who knows a good deal about the industrial system of this country, knows that it would be absolutely subversive of the discipline of a yard or works. If a workman knew that whatever reason he gave he would have the right of appeal to the Munitions Tribunal, he would be tempted to defy them and generally make himself rather difficult. He might do that. There is no real danger of a workman being dismissed now, unless the case is overwhelming. There is a great difficulty in obtaining workmen. Employers are willing to put up with all sorts of things from workmen. I have had the descriptions from some employers of the things they had had to pass over and take no notice of. They pretend not to see them, because they know perfectly well that if they even said a disagreeable word to some of their workmen the result would be that the workmen would say, "off we go." There is no real danger of dismissing workmen 2072 at the present moment From this time until the end of the War the difficulty will be to get workmen. I cannot imagine any employer discharging a workman unless the case is overwhelming. Seeing that I have met my hon. Friend so fairly, I hope he will withdraw this Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ The CHAIRMANI thought that was the one moved by the hon. Member for the Gorton Division (Mr. Hodge).
§ The CHAIRMANThey were all handed in in a bunch. I had already put the Question before the hon. Member rose. I am sorry I overlooked the Amendment. Perhaps he will bring it up on Report stage.
§ Question put, and agreed to.