HC Deb 15 March 1967 vol 743 cc429-31

11.8 a.m.

Mr. Roy Hughes (Newport)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require that every worker shall be entitled to receive written notice of impending dismissal; to establish Dismissal Appeals Boards; and for connected purposes. I have two principal reasons for seeking leave to introduce the Bill. The first is that I consider that arbitrary dismissal is out-of-date and opposed to modern conceptions of good industrial relations. What is more, it can no longer be tolerated by trade unionists in this country.

Secondly, the country is going through a very difficult period economically, and there is a need to boost our export trade. Strikes, however, justified, do not help, and I consider that if a form of dismissals appeals machinery existed a good many strikes could be eliminated. Such machinery would have a threefold beneficial effect. Employees would benefit through a greater sense of security in their employment. Secondly, industrial establishments would benefit through not having their production lines halted from time to time. Thirdly, the country would benefit through an overall improvement in industrial efficiency.

I appreciate that Britain compares favourably with many of its principal competitors in the amount of working days lost through strike action. Nevertheless, if our position relatively speaking can be improved even more, so much the better. It is difficult to get reliable estimates of the number of dismissals which take place, but I am informed that it approaches 1,000 for each working day every year. It is apparent that arbitrary dismissal is no small problem and that a great potential source of injustice exists here.

The Minister of Labour as reported in page 91 of his evidence to the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations stated that two-fifths of all stoppages and 20 per cent, of days lost through disputes arise out of conflicts about the employment or discharge of workers or other working arrangements rules and discipline.

A number of classic cases can be stated. There was the case of the young lady who was dismissed from her employment for spending too long in the cloakroom. The strike which resulted from that incident had ramifications which spread throughout large sections of the motor industry. There was the case of a lorry driver who reported to his home base that his brakes had failed. He was nevertheless told to bring the lorry back to the depot. This he refused to do, whereupon he was dismissed. Another case I cite is that of a young clerk employed by a steel company in South Wales who was sacked for distributing union literature during working hours.

Dismissals of this kind are often the result of personal conflicts and of hasty decisions by an employer or his representative. Afterwards the employer has to stick to his decision so that he shall not lose face. In many establishments throughout the country where trade unionism is weak the sack is still the main source of discipline. This is largely the case in small establishments, but even in many large and supposedly modern-thinking companies this code still applies for non-manual white collar workers.

Workers know from bitter experience that once a man is out of a factory it is difficult to obtain justice for him. The need for action is immediate. That is why so many walk-outs take place in industry. This is why I am urging the establishment of dismissal appeal boards throughout the country. A worker would be entitled to receive written notice and, except in cases provided for by the Redundancy Payments Act, 1965, he could appeal to the board against dismissal. Until such time as the appeal had been heard, the worker would remain in work or, in serious cases, he would be regarded as under suspension. The board, when considering its decision, would bear in mind the need to foster good industrial relations to ensure fair and quick treatment for all workers and to ensure that those workers have the right to organise themselves into trade unions.

I appreciate that in many establishments good voluntary agreements on dismissal procedure already exist, but are these sufficient? The answer must be "No", for in many establishments there is no trade union. I agree that all workers should be members of trade unions, but often the threat of dismissal is used to prevent the formation of such an organisation. The threat of the sack is still a great disincentive to forming a union or to becoming a shop steward. Nevertheless, in establishments where good voluntary agreements exist by agreement a company could apply to the Board for exemption from these statutory schemes.

According to The Times on Monday this week, it appears that the Minister of Labour is now thinking along the lines I have outlined. This is to be welcomed. Our machinery on dismissals is behind the times. For example, Western Germany is way ahead in this matter. Our system seems to be based on the principle that a man is guilty until he is proved innocent. The Bill which I seek leave to introduce would reverse that. I trust that in seeking leave I shall have the full support of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Roy Hughes, Mr. Probert, Mr. Clifford Williams, Mr. Edelman, Mr. William Wilson, Mr. Park, Mr. Horner, Mr. Palmer, Mr. Abse, Mr. Edwin Wainwright, Mr. Ellis, and Mr. Hazell.

    c431
  1. DISMISSAL APPEALS BOARD 48 words