HC Deb 03 August 1966 vol 733 cc638-40

Lords Amendment: In page 40, line 4, after "may" insert subject to the provisions of the next following subsection

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler)

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Ridley

I should like to ask the Minister a question about this group of Amendments to Clause 50. This concerns the tribunal, which we greatly welcome, set up to adjudicate upon what is dock work and what is not. I see the point of the Amendment. We do not want the tribunal to be bothered by everyone who, on his own initiative, wishes to challenge a decision or bring a case before the tribunal.

That is an objective to which we all subscribe. There is a difficulty here in that if a person employed in the docks, but not a member of any union wished to object to a definition, he is effectively prevented from doing so by this Amendment, because such a person, not a member of a union, would be unlikely to persuade a union to take his case to the tribunal. As the Amendment is, it is only the trades unions which can register the complaint on a person's behalf and gain access to the tribunal. That seems to be an injustice. We do not have a compulsory closed shop, either in the docks or anywhere else. While that is the position, a person who is not a trade unionist should have equal rights of application to the tribunal in the case of a dispute. It is clear, however benevolent a trade union may be, that it will look less favourably upon someone who has refused to become a member of the union.

Can the Minister say what would be the redress available to a person who has a genuine dispute over the nature of what is dock work, and how he can gain access to the tribunal if he is not a member of a trades union? Clearly, we want to except all objectors who are frivolous and who might take the time of the tribunal. This is an important Clause and one which we greatly welcome. Surely everyone should have the opportunity of access to the tribunal.

Mr. Gunter

This point has been rather disturbing. We have had representations from the employers and the trades unions about it. The main purpose of the Amendments is to provide that where a worker is a party to a dispute about dock work, he can have the matter referred to the tribunal only by acting through his trade union. I take the point that there could be workers in the docks who are not members of a union, but, whilst we are creating law here, if is unlikely that a worker would go to the tribunal without first seeking the advice of officials of the unions in the docks—even a man who was not a member of a union.

As the Clause stood when it left the House before, the individual would have had the right to take the Dock Labour Board before the tribunal. It has been represented to us by employers as well as trade unions that that would have opened the door to numerous references to the tribunal which might not be supported by the unions, which might serve no useful purpose and which might conceivably be used as a means of stirring up discontent. I do not want to enlarge on that point, but it is a pretty formidable argument.

There is no question of denying the individual the right to go before the tribunal in a dispute which affects him. But, on balance, we have taken the view, particularly in the light of conditions in the docks, that it would be as well if we listened to what the employers and the trades union have had to say, in that the complaint might be clarified at trade union level before being taken to the tribunal.

I would say, finally, that if I know my docks, this will work out well.

Mr. Ridley

With the leave of the House, I want to register a slight protest. It is too late a stage in the Bill and too late at night to debate it at length, but it seems a wrong principle that we should legislate for employers and trades unions in a situation which concerns the individual.

If we are to have democracy and are not to operate a compulsory closed shop, it seems imperative that all our legislation should make it possible for the aggrieved individual to complain—not just the trades union or, on the other side, the employers. I feel that the Amendment is a mistake. It would have been better to have borne the trouble and frustration of a lot of frivolous complaints rather than deny one honestly aggrieved man who is not a member of a union the right to complain.

I agree with the Minister that the point is rather remote and far-fetched, but I should like to register a protest that legislation from this House should deal with the people who work in industry as if they were employers or, on the other side, trade unionists, when we must look at them much more in the future as a group of individuals who have their own rights—not just rights by virtue of membership of one or other organisation.

I think that the Minister has taken the point, and I hope that further legislation will avoid such mistakes.

Mr. Gunter

I understand what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. If it were merely a question of frivolous complaints, I would be with him.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell (Southampton, Test)

May I ask if the expression "trade union" in this context refers to trades union at the national level? I know of a case where the local branch of a union representing dock workers in a port might think one way and want to register an objection in which they would not receive the support of its headquarters, which is responsible for ports all over the country. Could a local branch of a trade union in a port make representations, or must it be done at the national level?

Mr. Gunter

I should have thought that my hon. Friend, with his knowledge of trade unions, would know that a branch, under its terms of reference, would not act without authority from its national executive. I should have thought that "trade union" in this sense would mean the national executive.

Question put and agreed to.