§ 30. Mr. Prescottasked the Minister of Labour whether he has any statement to make on the recent decision of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions to seek the opinion of their members by ballot as to whether to strike or submit their claim for a wage increase to the National Arbitration Tribunal.
§ Mr. IsaacsYes, Sir. But as the answer is long and involved I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
§ Mr. PrescottIs it a fact that the proposed ballot would contravene the provisions of the National Arbitration Order, and if that be so, can the Minister say whether the Government are taking any steps in that respect?
§ Mr. IsaacsMay I confine myself to the second part of that supplementary question, and assure the hon. Member that we are in very close touch with the parties? We have had contact with them all the time and are still in contact with them, and we hope to be able to avert any trouble.
Following is the answer:
Neither of the parties has reported this dispute to me but I have felt obliged, as a matter of public interest, to draw the attention of the executive of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Trade Unions to certain issues raised by the terms of the ballot. The alternatives presented to the voting members imply that there is a choice between strike action and reporting a dispute to the National Arbitration Tribunal, whereas in fact under the Conditions of Employment and National Arbitration Orders strikes and lockouts are in general prohibited unless and until a dispute has been reported to me in writing and I have failed to take action prescribed under the Orders. Moreover, the reference of any dispute to the National Arbitration Tribunal is a matter for me and is not left 17 to the choice of either party; in certain circumstances there may be other steps that I could take if they seemed expedient and desirable. The Executive of the Confederation have explained that the terms of the ballot were decided under the Confederation rules but each union is at liberty to send an explanatory note to its membership participating in the ballot. In illy view, in a matter of this importance, affecting as it does a very large group of our workpeople, it is essential that there should be no room for misunderstanding as to the law and I have pointed out to the trade unions their responsibility to their membership in this regard.
I also took advantage of these discussions to ascertain both from the Engineering Employers' Federation and the Confederation the position that had been reached in the negotiations for a new wages structure for the engineering industry. The House will recall that a Court of Inquiry, whose Report dated 25th August, 1948, was laid before this House, recommended that the parties should re-open negotiations on this subject. It seemed to me desirable in the light of this recommendation to see whether even at this stage any steps could usefully be taken to assist the parties to reach some mutually satisfactory agreement on this subject. I found that although the discussions have not so far yielded any satisfactory result, the matter is still open for negotiation. The employers, however, state that they are not in a position to resume discussions while the claim for a £1 a week increase is a live issue.
I regret that the harmony that usually characterises these great and important industries should he disturbed, particularly at the present critical time in our economic situation. I am keeping a close watch on developments and I need hardly say that I shall he ready at any time to do what I can to assist the parties in arriving at a proper solution to their problems.