§ Mr. Watts
Does my right hon. Friend consider that Salford Corporation was wrong in dismissing my constituent, Miss Beryl Rogers, on 30th May, 1960, having given her no notice of the requirement that she should join a trade union—a copy of the notice she was given I have in my pocket, and it advises her of the terms of employment—because she refused to become a member of a trade union? If he does think this wrong, is he content to allow these matters to rest there?
§ Mr. Hare
I have written to my hon. Friend about my view. I expressed my sympathy with his reaction to people being unreasonably penalised for unwillingness to join a union, but I do not see how this particular problem can be solved by legislation. That is why I have answered the Question as I have. I think that most of these problems of 625 victimisation arise because of the attitude of a minority of employers or workers. I still do not think this can be changed by legislation. I think it only fair to add that, in general, activities such as sending a fellow worker to Coventry are entirely against the official advice of the trade unions.
§ Mr. Frank Allaun
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, according to the medical officer of health and the committee chairman, the lady in question was informed before she took the job that trade union membership was expected but she nevertheless accepted the job, she accepted the benefits which this union—N.A.L.G.O.—obtained for her, and Salford Council took this action only when her fellow workers protested? In view of the fact that she went into this with her eyes open, how could this be described as victimisation?