NEW CLAUSE.—(Record of Departure from prevailing Conditions.) (Hansard, 4 January 1916)

§ Mr. PRINGLE
I beg to move "That the Clause be read a second time."
This Clause refers to the controversy which has occupied such a large place with regard to the relaxation of trade union rules and practices, and the safeguards which the Government have offered for the restoration of these rules and practices after the War. We have been told by the Minister of Munitions himself that workmen both on the Clyde 874 and on the Tyne are keenly interested on these points, and that their position after the War is probably the question which has exercised them as much as anything else. He himself has over and over again told the workmen that they have absolute safeguards; that whatever sacrifices they make mow will be remembered by the Government, and that their position will be restored with the utmost strictness. Unfortunately, there is still doubt and suspicion in many parts of the country among the workmen as to how these things will fare when the War is over. This Clause is by way of giving an additional safeguard. If conditions which are relaxed now are to be restored in the future with fidelity, it is obvious that there should be a clear record of the relaxations which are now made. The Clause which I am moving provides that a record of departure from conditions prevailing when the establishment became a controlled establishment shall be kept by the employer of the establishment, and that failure to keep such a record will be made an offence under the Act. In the second Sub-section provision is made as to the details in regard to these departures. The first paragraph deals with the introduction of a new type of machine; the second deals with the introduction of women, or of a different class of unskilled labour; the third with the alteration in the division of work, methods of remuneration, systems of piecework bonus, etc.; the fourth with any rules or alterations of rules applicable to employment made since the declaration of War; and the last with any other departures from previous practice that the Minister of Munitions may from time to time impose.
I think it eminently reasonable that a record to the effect which I have indicated should be kept. It is only by having such a record that there is any standard or any evidence by which to determine whether a bargain is kept. We know it is quite likely at the conclusion of War that disputes may arise as to what practices had prevailed—as to what were the rules in vogue in any particular establishment. Now, in the absence of any record as is proposed in this Clause, the work of an arbitrator who has to decide in such a dispute will be an extremely difficult task indeed; in fact, he would have no clear record. He will be reduced entirely to the oral testimony of the employer and his representative on the one hand, and, on the other 875 hand, to the oral testimony of the employé. You are certain to have a conflict of evidence, and in such a conflict of evidence it will be a matter of the greatest difficulty to ascertain what the real position was. In these circumstances it would be well to have such a record as I propose. It will avoid disputes, and make a very important advance towards restoring confidence among the workmen, who at the present time are feeling distrust and suspicion. If you can remove the difficulties you will do far more than by all your penalties to secure the smooth working of the Act and to secure a plentiful supply of munitions which is so necessary to success in the war.

§ Mr. ANDERSON
I bog leave to second the Motion. The Minister of Munitions has a pretty shrewd idea of what has caused so much suspicion and distrust among the workpeople. The workpeople, like the engineers, are afraid that the sacrifices, the concessions, that they are making are not going to be wholly in the interests of the nation, but are going to be taken advantage of by employers for their own private ends That has been the real source of trouble so far as these matters are concerned. What we are asking in this is that that danger shall be guarded against as much as possible by a record being kept of all departures from established custom, so that the workmen shall feel that if these conditions are going to be restored, as promised, after the War, there shall be a record to show what departures have been made, and how the old conditions shall be built up once more. That is all we are asking for in this new Clause, and I am quite sure if that is done there v. ill be a great deal of friction and a great deal of trouble avoided. It asks, for example, as the Mover stated, that, in regard to questions like new machinery, the introduction of women, the introduction of unskilled labour, new rates of payment, new piece Work and so on, it shall be obligatory upon the employer to write down that he has made these changes, and it shall also be important that the inspector from the Munitions Department shall see those are made. That, I think, is the very least that can be done in the direction of safeguarding the workpeople, and of removing a great deal of suspicion and distrust that undoubtedly does exist at the present time. The reason for the suspicion is that the workpeople are afraid employers are 876 going to take advantage of these changes, and are going to continue these changes after the War to the detriment of labour. To the extent that that suspicion can be removed by a Clause of this kind, and in other ways, it will be entirely to the benefit of the workpeople and the State.

§ Dr. ADDISON
I am sorry that we cannot accept my bon. Friend's new Clause. I am sure we can satisfy the House that, as it stands, it is quite impossible to administer the Clause, apart from the fact that I cannot see myself that it meets any case that is not now covered by the arrangements made in accordance with the provisions of the second Schedule of the principal Act, which says:—
"Any departure during the War from the practice ruling in the workshops, shipyards, and other industries prior to the War, shall only be for the period of the War." Then the sixth paragraph of the Schedule says:—
"A record of the nature of the departure from the conditions prevailing when the establishment became a controlled establishment shall be kept, and shall be open for inspection by the authorised representative of the Government."
Those records are made, and I may just explain to the House what is done with them. The records of the changes in workshop customs are made by the employers, and three copies are made. One is kept by the employer, and the other two are sent to the Ministry of Munitions. One of these two is handed to the Secretary of the National Labour Advisory Committee. In that way a copy of the records of the alteration is filed with the employer, is filed with the 'Minister of Munitions, and is filed with the trade unions. I cannot see any better way of giving effect to the provisions of the Act. It was enacted to secure that where dilution was undertaken, the skilled workman whose place was taken by an unskilled workman should be protected—that was the main point of it—and to secure that this record should be in existence at the end of the War, so that it might show what were the rules in a particular establishment. That we do both in the letter and in the spirit now, according to the machinery I have explained.
7.0 P.M.
What does my hon. Friend want? He wants where an employer proposes to introduce an automatic lathe, where he has 877 not got one, that that is to be regarded as one of these changes, and, as a part of the provision of the principal Act, I would point out that there must be consultation before these changes are introduced. One of the most enduring benefits, I believe, of the work of the Ministry of Munitions will be that some of the biggest engineering establishments in this country will find themselves equipped at the end of the War with new and up-to-date and efficient machinery. There are being provided in the workshops of this country vast masses of new automatic machinery of the best kind, and it would mean that before any machine at all of this kind could be introduced at our request in order to increase the output of shells in an establishment, with respect to every requirement my hon. Friend sets out in the Clause there would have to be consultation and various other procedure. Now that is not what the trade unionists asked for, and it is really not a business proposition. What they asked for was that records should be kept which should bonæ fide protect the interests of the trade unions, and those records are kept to the full and in accordance with the procedure of the Statute. The proposal of the hon. Member would only make matters more difficult in every workshop, and would not accomplish anything in the interests of trade unions.