§ 17. Mr. Silkinasked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the decision of the Court of Appeal on the 19th instant in the case of Docker v. Standard Telephones and Cables, Limited, the effect of which is that workers in scheduled undertakings for the purpose of the Essential Work 842 (General Provisions) Order, who successfully appeal against dismissal and are reinstated in their employment, are not entitled to wages for toe period between the date of their dismissal and that of their reinstatement; that this involves great hardship on workers and tends to render nugatory the right of appeal; and whether he will amend the Order so as to require employers to pay wages during the period in question?
§ Mr. BevinI have already amended the Essential Work (General Provisions) Order, to provide that where a worker has been dismissed from a scheduled undertaking for serious misconduct and his reinstatement is subsequently directed by the National Service officer, the worker shall, if otherwise qualified, be entitled to his guaranteed wage from the date of dismissal until he is reinstated. In the case to which the hon. Member refers, of which I have seen a report in the Press, the worker was not dismissed for serious misconduct but was discharged with the permission of the National Service officer. I do not think I could properly require employers to pay wages between discharge and reinstatement in cases where permission to discharge had been duly obtained.
§ Sir Herbert WilliamsDoes this ruling apply to people discharged from Government employment?
§ Sir H. WilliamsWould it apply in the case where a man succeeded on appeal and the Government Department declined to accept the direction of the Ministry of Labour?
§ Mr. FosterDoes it apply also to the mining industry?
§ Mr. BevinIn the case of the mining industry there are some deviations from the general Order, and I cannot reply to my hon. Friend without notice.
§ Mr. SilvermanWill the Amendment to the Order apply retrospectively?