DISMISSAL APPEALS BOARDS (Hansard, 17 July 1968)

§ 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. By way of explanation I should point out that I first attempted to bring in a Bill of this character in March of last year, but on that occasion it fell by the wayside due to lack of Parliamentary time and, of course, as a result of lack of Government support. At the time I was informed by the then Minister of Labour that he was awaiting the Report of his National Joint Advisory Council on dismissals, that the dismissals procedure fell within the terms of reference of the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations.

Since then, as the House will be aware, both those Reports have been published. The Ministry's Report points out that while appreciating the need for a dismissals procedure, it prefers meanwhile to encourage voluntary agreements. I agree that it was issued over 12 months ago, but it is fair, nevertheless, to ask how much longer can we wait and can the country afford such inertia.

After all, in Appendix 1, paragraph 6, it is stated: It is estimated that between 333,000 and 500,000 dismissals per year result from misconduct. These are formidable figures indeed, but it is fair to point out that they hide a great deal of potential injustice. However fair minded management may be, are they always necessarily right, and are their subordinates necessarily right, too? People build their lives round their jobs, and for them dismissal can be disaster. It often means the uprooting of homes and families, and sometimes, particularly for elderly people, it is a question of getting a job at all.

It is for this sort of reason that the Royal Commission, in paragraph 526, states: We share in full the belief that the present situation is unsatisfactory. It goes on to say, in paragraph 529, that 1446 we believe it urgently necessary for workers to be given better protection against unfair dismissal. The Bill I seek to bring in this afternoon is broadly in line with the majority conclusions of the Royal Commission. There are, nevertheless, one or two points on which I would take issue with the Royal Commission, first, when it says an employee who wishes to lodge a complaint against dismissal should do so within five days. I feel that this period should be longer. I would suggest 14 days. Often, a person who has been dismissed has a feeling of humiliation. The urge to fight back, so to speak, does not come till later. The Commission speaks of it being undesirable to deprive the employer of the right to dismiss without notice for misconduct. In serious cases, I would agree with this contention, but not normally, for this would reverse our normal concept of justice that a man is innocent till he is proved guilty.

To illustrate my point, take, for instance, a badly organised workplace which is, nevertheless, moving towards trade union organisation. Suppose the employer were to sack an activist. The trade union organisation would be liable to crumble; there would be reluctance on the part of the other employees to take office in that trade union. Therefore, I believe that a written notice should be issued, and that, in normal circumstances, the worker should remain in work, and, in serious cases, be regarded as under suspension.

The central theme of the Bill is, nevertheless, to establish dismissal appeals boards, or, as the Royal Commission referred to them, labour tribunals. Machinery of this character is already in existence as a result of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1965. They only need reconstituting, but the necessary priority would have to be given to the hearing of dismissal cases in view of their special urgency.

Some people would point to the cost of establishing such a procedure, but I would say that this would be minimal compared with the savings from better industrial relations. I agree there is a need to discourage frivolous or vexatious cases, but this would not be an insuperable problem.

1447 There would be provision in the Bill for the exemption of suitable voluntary procedures, but I believe that legislation would be an incentive to employers and trade unions to set up suitable voluntary procedures. Voluntary agreements, for their effectiveness, largely rely on strong trade union organisation. In many establishments there is no trade union in existence, and in these the threat of the sack is often the main source of discipline. Even in companies with modern ideas this code of conduct still tends to apply to the non-manual white collar worker. The fact has also to be faced that there is no chance in the immediate future of voluntary methods succeeding in badly organised trades and industries involving millions of workers.

Statutory machinery can be justified then, first, if only because of lack of machinery and the inadequacy of what is already in existence, and, secondly, to encourage trade union organisation and the growth of collective bargaining on sound lines. There is the problem of conciliation when wrongful dismissal has been proved. Ideally, reinstatement is the answer but often a permanent rift may have been opened between an employer and an employee. An employee may not wish for reinstatement even though he has been unfairly treated. Again, he may have obtained another job. In cases of this sort we feel that compensation would be the best answer. Reinstatement and compensation can both be envisaged as remedies, depending upon individual circumstances which would be taken into consideration by the tribunals or boards.

Those, briefly, are the provisions provided for in the Bill, the implementation 1448 of which I believe to be urgently necessary.

I speak not without personal experience of this matter. Before coming to the House I spent a quarter of a century in industry and, what is more, I participated in a number of strikes and even led a few. The Royal Commission, in paragraph 544, came to the conclusion: … that the balance of advantage greatly favours the establishment of statutory machinery. Accordingly, we recommend early legislation to this end. I agree with this contention.

The Labour Party, in its 1966 election manifesto, said this: We shall recognise the right to trade union representation and ensure proper safeguards against arbitrary dismissal. To my mind, the time for decision has arrived and, therefore, in seeking leave to introduce the Bill, I trust that I shall have the full support of the House.