HC Deb 31 October 1944 vol 404 cc763-72

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Pym.]

5.58 p.m.

Mr. Dobbie (Rotherham)

I desire to raise a case with which I have been pursuing the Minister of Labour for a considerable time. I refer to the dismissal of a man from his employment when working under the Essential Work Order and to his rehabilitation in the industry in which he was employed. This man was a steel worker in the Sheffield area and he lives in the constituency which I represent. He has lost his work in circumstances which have caused a good deal of resentment in the district because of the apparent apathy of the officials of the Ministry of Labour, both local and national. The Parliamentary Secretary is well aware of the facts of the case, and it is only after many attempts by corre- spondence and by Questions to the Minister in the House that I felt there was no intention on the part of the Ministry to do anything of a practical character in the matter. It is only because of that that I bring it to the House to-night. I do not do it because of any publicity that I desire to give it, but to see if we can persuade the Minister to do something to rehabilitate this man into the industry from which he has been so unfairly dismissed. As this man was working under the Essential Work Order, he naturally looked upon the Ministry of Labour to support him. He was disappointed. He was a departmental manager in a cold steel rolling mill—

It being Six o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Mathers.]

Mr. Dobbie

There is probably no need to name the firm by whom he was employed, because I do not think there is any charge against the Ministry with regard to them. I am informed by the men in the industry, who know the industry well and the technicalities of the job, that this man was well-equipped with knowledge of his job and was an excellent workman in every detail. He was not only an excellent practical man but a good shop organiser, from the standpoint of production. It goes without challenge, even from his employer, that, in the short period after his engagement in this post, he raised the production of the mill 100 per cent.

It was in 1942 that he was dismissed, and he has not done any work since until a week or two ago. One would think that in a time of need, when steel was se much wanted, when a man was good at production and so much needed in the country, it would have been the duty of the Ministry of Labour to see that a man of this character was kept in employment. The firm for whom he was working were so pleased in the initial stages of his work that they sent him a letter thanking him for his increased output and for the standard of the work that he was turning out. It was only when it became known what his leanings were towards the workmen and towards organisation, that there seemed to be difficulties beween him and the heads of the firm.

Then things started to become unpleasant. Eventually they persuaded the man to sign a paper for his release. It was against his desire, and with the thought that it would cause an inquiry to be made at the same time as he signed it he wrote: "This signature has been obtained by duress by my employer." Again, the man was disappointed. He thought that that statement would cause an inquiry to be made by the Ministry of Labour official who was responsible for granting releases and giving permission to employers to discharge men. No inquiry was ever held, and the man walked the streets from August, 1942, a man highly skilled in the production of the steel which was so much wanted, without one single direction to employment from the Ministry of Labour, while in the same town at the same time, men were constantly being brought up and sent to jail for absenteeism.

One can understand that not only the man himself but the people in the locality where he lived, and the industrial workers in the area noticed these things and wondered why this man was being victimised. One can use that word, because at least on one occasion when the man had obtained on his own initiative a responsible post and when all arrangements had been made for him to obtain a house and start work on Monday morning, he received a wire from the firm telling him that another man had obtained the job. That wire was received two days after his prospective employers knew the names of the people with whom he had been employed. Naturally that man is suffering under this opinion, which on examination one could feel he is justified in having, that it is a case of victimisation, and that because of the attitude of his previous employers who, not content with having him turned out of his work with the consent—I nearly said with the help of, but with the consent—of the responsible official of the Ministry of Labour this man is also being kept from obtaining employment of a similar character, work to which he is accustomed. One could have understood it if the man had been an inferior workman, if he had not been able to do his job; but as I have said, he is well qualified, well equipped in the job of cold steel rolling, well equipped in the art of shop management, with a great knowledge of the industry. Alto- gether this man has been unable to find employment for two years.

Mr. Bowles (Nuneaton)

Can my hon. Friend say whether the man appealed to the National Service Officer to have the order revoked, and if so, and the employer did not obey, did he take proceedings for arrears of wages?

Mr. Dobbie

I shall deal with that in a moment. From time to time the man applied to the Labour Officer but took no court action. He wrote to the Minister of Labour. I myself have put down Questions in the House, and have also written a good number of letters to the Minister in regard to the situation.

Eventually we had an investigation into the matter in July of this year. There were present the representative of the Ministry from Leeds, with the man concerned and myself: We reviewed the whole situation. We asked that this man's case might be reviewed by the Minister. We asked that he might have an opportunity of applying his knowledge in the industry in which he had been trained. The man said: "I do not care where I go to work." In the case I have put I ask that he might be reinstated in the place where he had worked. There was, I consider, an error of judgment for which I think the Minister would accept responsibility, not a personal responsibility but as Minister, for an error of judgment committed by someone in the Ministry of Labour. Inasmuch as that has been made quite crystal clear, I thought it was the duty of the Minister to see that the man was rehabilitated in the industry, and that if it was not possible to reinstate him with the firm for which he had previously worked, there were many firms in the country, there was much to be done in the production of steel, in which this well-equipped and knowledgeable man could have been found employment.

There was a question of compensation. I think this man is entitled to compensation from the Ministry for the fact that he lost two years' work and found the doors of other places closed against him, and was unable to find employment, and today has a little job which finishes next week, and which was not obtained through the Ministry, but through his efforts and those of a friend of his. We had the investigation, and the result was as disappointing as all the previous efforts to get the man reinstated. I see that the Par- liamentary Secretary has a good deal of the correspondence there. Hundreds of letters have passed between the man, the Ministry, and myself on the matter. The last letter that we had, after the investigation had taken place, said: I have looked into the case of Mr. A. Thomas, of Rotherham, about which you wrote to Bevin on 7th September. As you know, Mr. Thomas was employed … at Sheffield as a departmental manager. It appears that in consequence of some disagreement Mr. Thomas was invited by the directors to resign his post with them and did so in September, 1942. Under the provisions of the Essential Works Order, a person employed by a scheduled undertaking may not leave his employment, or be discharged by the employers (except for serious misconduct), without the permission of the National Service officer. No such permission was obtained in Mr. Thomas' case and it would appear, therefore, that an infringement of the Order accursed. The most that the Department could have done in the circumstances would have been to institute proceedings under the Order against the party concerned for irregularly terminating the employment without the permission of the National Service officer, but when the matter was considered at the time it was felt that the circumstances were such as to make it unlikely that successful proceedings could be instituted, and it was decided, therefore, that the Department should take no further action in the matter. I cannot attempt to adjudicate on matters which were in dispute between Mr. Thomas and the firm, but I feel confident that the Department's decision not to institute proceedings under the Essential Work Order was justified. You are, I think, aware that Mr. Thomas is not prepared to consider any other employment unless the salary is at least £840 a year. We have tried without success to find a suitable post for him, and I am afraid that there is very little prospect of ever being able to offer him other employment which he would be likely to accept. Further, he makes a special point of requiring a payment of compensation amounting to two years' salary. There is no fund out of which I can authorise any such payment. That letter was very disappointing. In our own area we have seen so many people being brought up in front of the justices for absenteeism, and when the Ministry admit that a man has been dismissed or has left his employment through some infringement of the Order, his case should be dealt with. Then, if the fault was Thomas's he should have been prosecuted, and if the fault was that of the employers they should have been prosecuted. In an area where numbers of men are being sent to gaol for absenteeism, we cannot find any employer who will employ this man, who has been on the street for two years. Also, he has lost his money, and when he started in this job he was right down on the poverty line. I think the Ministry should pay some compensation. What is more important than any claim to compensation is that the man should be reinstated in the industry in which he has spent his life. Not only has he lost his job with that firm, but the doors of every other firm are closed against him. I wonder whether it is because the man is being blacklisted?

If they had done nothing else, the Ministry ought to have cleared that up and seen that the man had, at least, an opportunity to get back into the industry. I hope that, in spite of the long controversy we have had, and all the correspondence, it is not too late yet for the Minister to deal with the matter. After all, if you send men to gaol, you ought to assert yourselves and compel the employers to give work to men capable of doing the job. That is the point in this case which not only the man himself, but the people in the area, cannot understand. They know the value and capacity of the man as a workman, and they know that a great injustice has been done to him. I hope it is not too late for the Minister to show that he is prepared, not only to look at the matter, but to do something which would get the man rehabilitated in the end.

6.16 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Tomlinson)

My hon. Friend gave notice some time ago to raise this question, and he has told the story, from the point of view of, the man himself, in a way of which I am not complaining. I think it ought to be clearly understood that the Ministry came into this question after the man had left his employment. In a letter which he wrote in September to the Ministry, he called attention to the fact that he had left his job but that that had been done at the behest of the firm; in other words, he had been asked to resign, had complied with the request to resign, and had then written to the Minister, a fortnight or three weeks afterwards asking that the matter should be investigated.

Under the provisions of the Essential Work Orders, as my hon. Friend has stated, a person employed in a scheduled undertaking may not leave his employment, or be discharged by his employer, without the permission of the National Service officer. It is not questioned that no such permission was obtained in Thomas's case, and I am prepared to admit that an infringement of the Order occurred. There is no question of that. When an infringement of the Order occurs, somebody has got to decide whether or not a prosecution is to take place, and I want my hon. Friend to understand that, in this instance, there can be no question of the Ministry not being prepared to prosecute an employer. As a matter of fact the position of the man himself in the firm would place him from the point of view of the majority of the workers, almost in the position of an employer.

The question arose who was to be prosecuted. The man had left his employment without getting permission. Therefore, the Department had got to decide whether he should be prosecuted for having left his employment without, permission, or whether, in the light of his letter, the employers should be prosecuted for having obtained, as it were underduress, the man's resignation. The Department, after considering all that was involved—and it is not accepted by all employers and all workers that the man was capable of doing this job; that was a question between the employer and himself—

Mr. Dobbie

Surely, the Minister is not questioning the capacity of the man, in view of the letter of recommendation which the employer gave him, and of which the Minister has a copy?

Mr. Tomlinson

No, I am not questioning the capacity of the man, but his ability to carry out the duties which the employer expected him to do in the relationship which evolved between them. The request for the resignation of a man enjoying a position of that kind is not simply because the employers do not like the look of his eyes. They have some reason for wanting it. We had to decide whether the man or the employer should be prosecuted and, rightly or wrongly, we came to the conclusion that it would be better to prosecute neither.

Mr. A. Bevan (Ebbw Vale)

Has not the initiative always to come from the employer? It is legalistic fiction when employer and employee are held equally responsible in these matters. The initiative must always come from the employer.

Mr. Tomlinson

I am not arguing the position of the employer and the workman. It is only an instance where infringement of the Order has taken place and prosecution may take place in consequence. In many instances where infringement has taken place and where it is to the benefit of the man that he should be allowed to remain where he is no one suggests that because there has been infringement of the Order there should be prosecution.

Now comes the difficult part of this case. My hon. Friend suggests that we kept this man walking about two years without attempting either to rehabilitate him or to put him into work. The man laid down the stipulation himself that he wanted a job of £840 a year. I have had some experience during the last 3½ years of people who believe that they are entitled to a good deal of pay for the job they are doing. It is not an easy matter to place a man in a job at £840 a year whatever his qualifications. Therefore we were limited. My hon. Friend asked why we did not direct him to an easier and less well paid job. Again, rightly or wrongly, we considered that this man, who thought that he was capable of an executive job and wanted an opportunity to improve himself, ought not to be directed to a very inferior job.

Mr. Dobbie

In view of the fact that we intimated that all the doors were closed because of the victimisation of the employers could not something specially be done?

Mr. Tomlinson

We tried through all our machinery to find someone who was prepared to find him work. What would my hon. Friend and other hon. Members have said if such an individual had been directed to a two or three pounds a week job? We did not think that he should be subject to direction under Defence Regulation 58A. That is the explanation. This man speaks about compensation, and on the face of it it looks as if he has a claim to some consideration. There is no fund out of which we can pay compensation. I have received a personal letter from him. It is very personal, and he suggests that the £25,000 for which he is asking might come out of the same fund as that which provides Bevin's and Tomlinson's wages. That is a practical suggestion but it is not open to the Ministry of Labour. He not only wants £25,000 compensation for loss of two years' salary but for loss of prospects during those two years.

Mr. A. Bevan

Maybe he has heard that recently a director of a great newspaper was paid £67,000 by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and perhaps he thought he was entitled to the same consideration.

Mr. Tomlinson

Maybe he did, but I am not able to hold out any hope that compensation of that kind would be paid. What I can say is that the man is now working. It is true that he considers it work of a temporary character until he can get back to something better which he considers he is capable of doing. All I can say to my hon. Friend is that so far as we are concerned, any help we can we are prepared to give, but from the standpoint of compensation for loss of work, or for what he calls lack of understanding and initiative on the part of the Ministry of Labour, I can hold out no hope to him that he is going to benefit.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. A. Bevan

I know nothing about the facts of the case except those put forward by my hon. Friend and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, and I know enough about the latter to know that if anything has gone wrong it has not been for any lack of personal sympathy on his part. However, I am bound to tell him, and I think my hon. Friend will agree with me, that sometimes his local officials take very queer views about these cases. For instance, I cannot accept the position at all that the initial stages of this dispute exonerate the Minister. My hon. Friend said that the Ministry had to decide whether they were to take action against both or neither—

Mr. Tomlinson

Or either.

Mr. Bevan

As a consequence of making a wrong decision in the initial stage of the dispute, the thing has been wrong right the way through, because no investigation has been made into whether the employer was justified in asking for this resignation. It is quite true that the man himself should have made a complaint and should have insisted upon an investigation being made. But the fact is that in these cases, especially in those of men of his status, where the employer says, "I no longer want you," that finishes it. But the initial mistake was the employer's. The employer should have asked permission from the National Service Officer to get rid of the man in the first place. The point is that if the employer had been tackled over the original infringement, proper investigation would have taken place whether the employer was justified or not in the attitude towards the man, and the man might have been justified in the attitude he has taken since. It is quite true that the man may be making extravagant claims now, but if you have been two years suffering from a sense of grievance and victimisation, then you do get into an abnormal state of mind.

Mr. Dobbie

And out of the industry altogether.

Mr. Bevan

It seems to me that my hon. Friend has not exonerated his Department from the complaint—everything depends upon the original act in this case—and the initial fault lay with his Department. I do not know enough about the facts of this case to make a charge about it, but I know enough about the general position to know that quite often the officials of his Department—the National Service Officers—meet the local employers and are smarmed over by them over and over again. He would be making a very great mistake if he thought that the National Service Officers are effective protection to individuals in these circumstances. Now, the man having been dismissed and having been on the market, cannot get employment with other employers. It would be far easier for him to get employment at the rate of £3, £4 or £5 a week but being of this status, and having been dismissed by the employer, with the apparent agreement—

Mr. Tomlinson indicated dissent.

Mr. Bevan

—of the National Service Officer, there is a stigma upon his reputation, and therefore it would be very difficult indeed for him to find employment with any other firm in these circumstances. I think the bulk of the responsibility lies with the officers of my hon. Friend's Department in this matter.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes after Six o'Clock.