Discharged Worker, South Harrow (Hansard, 16 December 1943)

§ 9. Mr. Norman Bower
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that Mr. J. E. H. Barker, of 14, Park Gates, South Harrow, was discharged from his employment on grounds of serious misconduct, as a result of which police court proceedings were brought against him; that these proceedings were dismissed and that the Appeal Tribunal nevertheless rejected Mr. Barker's appeal against his discharge; and whether, in view of the fact that the alleged misconduct constituted the sole basis for the police court proceedings which were dismissed, he will order a re-hearing of the case?

§ Mr. Bevin
The local appeal board were aware of the result of the police court proceedings, but, in the light of all the evidence before them, they were of the opinion that the worker's action amounted to serious misconduct justifying dismissal. In these circumstances, the National Service Officer has no power under Article 5 (3) (b) of the Essential Work Order to direct Mr. Barker's reinstatement, and there is no further action I can take in the matter.

§ Mr. Gallacher
Is this not an amazing situation and one that calls for intervention by the Minister? This man was proved in a public court innocent of misconduct, but the employers, somehow or other, are able to get an appeal court to decide against the decision of the public court. Does that not call for some intervention?

§ Mr. Bevin
There are many things done in industry and life which are not criminal offences but are very unwise.

§ Mr. Gallacher
Is the Minister not begging the point? The same chap who was before the public court was before the appeal committee, but while the public court exonerated him from the charge of misconduct the appeal board dismissed him for it. He was charged before the committee with a criminal offence.

§ Mr. Bevin
In answer to that long argument I can only say that the man was charged in the court with a criminal offence. In the case of the Essential Work Order it was only a question of fact whether his misconduct contravened the Order and not whether it was criminal at all.