HC Deb 09 June 1953 vol 516 cc19-21
33. Mr. Isaacs

asked the Minister of Labour if he has any further information relating to the points outstanding in the dispute of D. C. Thomson; and if he will make a statement.

Sir W. Monckton

The House will recall that, following the dispute last year, there remained outstanding the question of reinstatement of the men who had been on strike.

After the settlement of the main issue of principle when the firm ceased to insist on their employees giving an undertaking not to belong to a trade union, it was my hope that conditions would be created in which a mutually acceptable solution of the outstanding question might be reached. I was much encouraged in this by the action taken by the unions in lifting the ban which had been imposed on the firm's supplies and distribution. In the light of this action, I again expressed to the firm my hope that a way could be found to remove the remaining difficulty and offered the assistance of my Department to that end, but I was informed that their board remained absolutely definite in their view that none of the men concerned could be re-engaged. It was a matter of great regret to me that the decision of the firm made it impossible to explore further any means of arriving at an agreed settlement of the remaining issue.

I understand that of the 78 men originally concerned, four are no longer available for employment in the printing industry and the remaining 74 are in work of a temporary character.

Mr. Isaacs

First let me express my thanks to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I appreciate the very full answer he has given, but there are one or two points about which I should like to question him if I may.

Is he aware that the ban on handling the firm's goods was lifted after conversations that created the understanding that to do so would lead to the return to work of some of the men concerned? Further to that, since that has taken place, the firm have completed their staffing. They have engaged a number of other men, and not one of the men previously employed has been re-engaged. Finally, can the Minister say if at any time the firm have applied to the local employment exchange for men to fill the vacancies?

Sir W. Monckton

In answer to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, he will have seen from my answer that I did what I could to make further approaches to the firm when it became possible to do so, but they were fruitless. In regard to the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's question about the replacement of the men, it is true that further men have been taken on. They have been nominated—the right hon. Gentleman will know how that works under the Notification of Vacancies Order —but it was made clear to us that it was no good our putting forward people who had been employed there before.

Mr. Isaacs

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that of the 74 men who were out, most of whom are in temporary employment, 17 or 18 of them have had to leave their home town in Scotland to find employment elsewhere? It seems as if the firm have not quite played the game in haying got the ban lifted and then punishing the men for joining the union which the firm now say they had no right to do.

Sir W. Monckton

So far as the attitude of the firm is concerned, I did my best to persuade them to take a different line, but, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is not within my power to do more than attempt to persuade in the matter. I can neither direct men nor employers in this case, and I am not asking for powers to do so.