HC Deb 13 July 1944 vol 401 cc1859-61
1. Mr. Kirkwood

asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that a shop steward has been discharged from a factory in West London for serious misconduct, the charge being that he was playing darts, although at local appeals board no corroborative evidence was produced; and, as there is considerable evidence that the shop steward was not playing darts as alleged and that a miscarriage of justice has occurred, will he issue a direction for the reinstatement of this shop steward.

3. Sir Robert Young

asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that a shop steward, charged by the firm of serious misconduct, has been dismissed from a factory in West London, of which he has been informed; whether, at the hearing, the local appeals board had any conclusive corroborative evidence; whether the National Service officer will be instructed to issue a direction for reinstatement; and, if not, what action he proposes to take seeing the discharge of the person concerned is regarded by his fellow-workers as a case of victimisation.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin)

This case was heard, on appeal, by the local appeal board who came to the conclusion that the worker concerned had been guilty of serious misconduct, justifying dismissal. Accordingly, I have no power under the Essential Work Order, nor has the national service officer, to direct his reinstatement. I would add that the board also recorded their opinion that there was no evidence of victimisation.

Mr. Kirkwood

Is it not possible for the Minister of Labour to have a recall of the board, so that other evidence may be laid before it?

Mr. Bevin

I cannot intervene on a question of serious misconduct.

Sir R. Young

Is it the fact that witnesses for this man were not heard by the local appeal board but witnesses for the firm were heard? In the second place, does my right hon. Friend think that when 30 men say he was not playing they were all telling untruths, and on this information surely the man should not have been dismissed?

Mr. Bevin

When a question arises of a man being discharged for serious misconduct I am in the hands of the board. On other matters, which do not involve serious misconduct, the board is in the position of an advisory committee, but on this issue I am entirely in the hands of the board.

Sir R. Young

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question; perhaps he has not access to the facts at the moment. What I asked was, is it the case that the witnesses for this man were not heard by the local appeal board, while witnesses for the firm were heard?

Mr. Bevin

I have no evidence of that. I will look into it.

Mr. Pritt

Would the right hon. Gentleman consider this? What my hon. Friend on the Front Bench has said has been widely stated. Will he make inquiries into it, because, if it is true, it is quite obvious that through his Department or by mandamus or other proceedings in the courts, this tribunal could be compelled to reconsider the whole case and re-adjudicate?

Mr. Bevin

I will look into the case.

Mr. Gallacher

When the Essential Work Order was introduced, did the Minister consider that such a question as serious misconduct would be raised? Are we to understand, when victimisation of this kind takes place, that this House is absolutely helpless to do anything on behalf of a citizen and a worker with a good record as in this case?

Mr. Bevin

It is assumed under the Essential Work Order that the man should be available and do his job. He was guilty of misconduct, and the case went to the board. I cannot enter into a Debate in this House on the evidence given at the board. If it is alleged that something has happened which should not have happened, I will look into it.