HC Deb 29 May 1968 vol 765 cc2047-58

Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gourlay.]

1.42 a.m.

Mr. Ted Fletcher (Darlington)

I am very pleased to have this opportunity of drawing attention to a matter which affects the basic principles of the right of freedom of association by focussing attention on the injustices of denying the right to more than 3,500 clerical and administrative workers in the steel industry to be represented by the union of their own choice.

Prior to the nationalisation of this industry, the employers did everything in their power to frustrate the efforts of the trades unions to organise the "white collar" workers in the industry. Staff associations were formed which, in effect, were puppet company unions, and membership of the notorious Staffs Mutual Benefit, whose rules forbid union membership, was encouraged. Yet, in spite of all the obstacles—formidable obstacles—union membership increased. Some staffs joined the Manual Workers' Union, which had reciprocating rights with the steel companies, and over the years, the Clerical and Administrative Workers' Union secured a substantial membership, especially in Scotland, and secured local agreements with a number of private companies.

Then came nationalisation. The nationalisation of steel was welcomed by the union who foresaw little difficulty in establishing the right to negotiate on behalf of its members, a right which they had already obtained in other nationalised industries such as coal, electricity, gas and civil aviation. It would be an understatement to say the union was shocked when the British Steel Corporation rejected the claim for union recognition. The Corporation seeks to justify this decision by stating that it does not believe that the recognition of a multiplicity of unions would be in the best interests of a nationalised industry or in the best interests of its employees.

Yet in July, 1967, the Corporation, being faced with a position in which no union had recognition for staff workers prior to nationalisation, extended recognition to a group of manual workers' unions, 14 in all. This clearly meant that of some 14 unions some had very few clerical membership in their union; and in fact the Clerical and Administrative Workers' Union has the second highest total out of those 14 unions in membership in the steel industry.

The Corporation seeks to plead support of their decision by the T.U.C. In fact, the T.U.C. Organisation Committee approved one of those shabby compromises about which Mr. George Woodcock, its secretary, speaks: because the Corporation has accepted only part of the recommendation of the T.U.C, the part that suited its convenience, so that it can shuffle responsibility for its decision not to recognise the union or negotiate with the union on behalf of its members on to the T.U.C.

Arising from this, the union has now advised the British Steel Corporation that it intends to give 14 days' notice—I believe expiring in a few days' time—for strike action. If a strike takes place it will cause very great damage to an industry we all want to see prosper. But responsibility for the dispute, and for the dislocation it will cause, must rest fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the British Steel Corporation.

In a way, this is history repeating itself, because in 1947 a similar situation arose in the coal mining industry when the National Coal Board refused to recognise the right of this union to negotiate for clerical workers. This led to a general stoppage and ultimately, as a result, to recognition of the union. I may say the Clerical and Administrative Workers' Union is not the only one involved. A.S.T.M.S., a technical staff union, is also involved; and my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) may wish to say a word on that.

I sum up by saying that this is a fundamental issue. The Government have a duty in a democratic society to protect the freedom of the individual from coercion by his employers. This is Human Rights Year. The Government can make their contribution to human rights by telling the British Steel Corporation that they will not tolerate a situation in which the elementary rights of individuals to be represented by a union freely chosen by themselves is denied.

I hope, therefore, that the Government will try to drive some sense into the heads of the members of the British Steel Corporation and will try to convince them of the justice of this case. We want an up-to-date industry. This was the purpose of nationalisation; but it must also have an up to date conception of human problems and human rights; and the quicker my hon. Friends bring these facts to the attention of the Steel Board, the quicker will the workers bring the facts of the recognition of this union to the notice of the Steel Board; and the sooner we shall reach harmony between the staff employed by the industry and their employers.

This is a matter of principle, a matter of the right minorities to be represented by a union of their own choice. I therefore hope that my hon. Friends will make representations to the Corporation indicating that their attitude will not be tolerated in a civilised society.

Mr. Donald Coleman (Neath)

Would my hon. Friend care to comment on this fact? The trouble is not that the Steel Corporation has not carried out its requirement to consult with those organisations appearing to them to be appropriate in the industry, but that there are other trade unions which hitherto have not organised membership within the steel industry and which, since the industry's arrangements for the organisation of staff workers is governed by an Act of Parliament, are trying to muscle in on it.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member cannot make a speech under the guise of an intervention.

Mr. Fletcher

There is substance in what my hon. Friend says. Prior to the nationalisation of the industry the Clerical and Administrative Workers' Union had a substantial membership. They have 3,500 members in this industry and it seems senseless for the National Steel Board to resist the claim of this union for members in the industry.

1.53 a.m.

Mr. Ian Mikardo (Poplar)

The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Ted Fletcher) has put his case with charac- teristic coolness and modesty. I find it difficult to be equally cool because I am indignant about this situation.

Yesterday I put a supplementary question to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Power to ask whether he was aware that the British Steel Corporation is continuing the practice of the former owners of the industry in resisting any white collar unions in the industry, and continuing the practice of paying money to an organisation which denies benefit to any employee if he is a member of a trade union. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister said if that was the case the Corporation ought not to be behaving in that way.

That answer suggests that my right hon. Friend does not know whether it is happening or not, and further that he does not think he ought to do anything about it. In fact he has had a lively correspondence with me over the last few weeks, and unless he does not read the letters he signs he knows all about this situation.

Some of the people running this industry were, before nationalisation, bitter opponents of staff trade unions. They were willing, though reluctant, to accept trade unionism amongst manual and clerical workers. If staff were organised they would prefer them to be organised in unions catering for manual workers rather than staff workers.

One of the leading figures in the industry, even when a member of the committee preparing for nationalisation, put up notices in his works advising members of staff not to join trade unions. This is being continued, notwithstanding my hon. Friend's comments in his intervention. In fact, the unions which have the largest membership in the technical and supervisory grades are not among those the Corporation recognises. It recognises some which have no membership in these grades, or certainly not more than literally a handful, counting the number of fingers on one hand.

That, however, is not the worst of the story. In a recent instruction from its headquarters to local managements, the Corporation has said that those managements should encourage staff employees to join manual unions. Had it said that they should encourage those employees who were not trade union members to join manual unions, nobody would have taken the slightest exception, but it has said that employees who are members of staff unions should be encouraged to leave those unions and to join craft and manual unions.

Anybody with a ha'p'orth of knowledge of the industrial scene—and certainly that includes my hon. Friend the Undersecretary, who has great knowledge of it —will know that that instruction is two things. First, it is a violation of the Bridlington agreement and, secondly, it is an open invitation to inter-union warfare, which nobody would want and which would do the Corporation very grave damage. I do not want to say anything about the Clause which my hon. Friend read about recognition, because that is about to be tested in the courts. It is very much open to question whether the Corporation has acted bona fide in its interpretation and, therefore, I must not say anything about it, and I will not do so. Here, however, is an open invitation to internecine warfare between different groups of workers which can only damage the Corporation in the objectives which it seeks.

Even allowing for the proper autonomy of the Corporation to run its affairs, this is a matter which cannot be of indifference to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power, who is the sponsoring Minister, or to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who is responsible for seeing that labour relations in the industry do not deteriorate. I therefore ask him to look closely into this matter. It is very much better that he and his Department should take a close look at this matter before there is grave industrial dislocation than be compelled to look at it after that dislocation takes place.

1.57 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. Harold Walker)

The House will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Ted Fletcher) for raising this matter. This issue, which is of great importance for employees in the nationalised steel industry and also for relations and efficiency in the industry, is an extremely difficult one. My hon. Friend's presentation of the case, and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo), has been at a high and responsible level.

I should like at the outset to make clear my right hon. Friend's position in this matter. The House will be aware that my right hon. Friend is currently having discussions on this issue with the organisations concerned. In the circumstances, I must, therefore, be particularly circumspect in what I have to say tonight. What I have to say, therefore, is not intended to imply any judgment on the actions or attitudes of the parties. My purpose is merely to try to set out, for the benefit of the House, the problem and some of the main factors which should be borne in mind.

I am fully aware of the strong feelings of some of my hon. Friends that certain decisions have been taken by the British Steel Corporation on trade union recognition, particularly in respect of clerical and supervisory grades. The very difficult problems with which the Corporation has found itself faced in this field should not, however, be overlooked.

The Iron and Steel Act, 1967, places on the Corporation a duty to seek consultation with any organisation appearing to them to be appropriate with a view to the conclusion of agreements with respect to the establishment and maintenance of machinery for negotiation of terms and conditions of employment ". The negotiating arrangements which had previously existed in the steel industry were diverse and complex and to attempt to transplant them into the new nationalised structure would not have been possible or even appropriate. The Corporation was faced, particularly in respect of supervisory and technical grades of staff, with claims from various unions for national negotiating rights. The Corporation decided therefore to consult the T.U.C. on union organisation in the nationalised steel industry, and the House will, I am sure, accept that, by so doing, the Corporation has demonstrated its concern to take account of the views of the trade union movement. As an interim arrangement, the Corporation agreed to grant national recognition up to foreman level to six organisations which draw the majority of their membership in the industry from process workers, craftsmen and general workers, but which, in some cases, also include appreciable numbers of white collar employees. The Corporation also agreed to an assessment of the unions' claims to recognition being carried out by the T.U.C.

Following discussion with the T.U.C. and the unions concerned the Corporation has followed the advice of the T.U.C. on foremen, clerical, technical and supervisory grades to recognise nationally only the six general organisations already recognised for manual workers. Local recognition of two white collar unions, the Association of Technical, Supervisory and Managerial Staffs, and the Clerical and Administrative Workers' Union, each of which my two hon. Friends who have spoken represent, is being maintained where it has been granted hitherto.

On middle management the Corporation has not felt able to follow the T.U.C.'s advice that national recognition should be granted, but restricted to the six national organisations already recognised in respect of clerical, supervisory and manual grades. The Corporation's decision has been based on the view that a single Corporation-wide organisation would be the most effective in representing the interests of managerial staffs, and the Corporation considers that no organisation yet has the substantial and widespread support from middle management grades within the Corporation which it believes to be essential for recognition.

As my hon. Friends have made clear, it is primarily the Corporation's decision to restrict national recognition in respect of clerical and supervisory grades to the six organisations already recognised in respect of manual workers, and the rejection of the claims of the A.S.T.M.S. and the C.A.W.U. to national recognition, which has given rise to concern. This is understandable in view of the tradition of organisation which is basic to these two unions, namely, that the interests of these groups of employees can be most satisfactorily protected by separate organisations catering specifically for this class of employee.

The House will not expect me to express a view on this issue which is currently a matter of dispute between the two organisations and the Corporation. I would only ask the House to bear in mind also the Corporation's position, having received from the T.U.C. a clear recommendation in favour of restricting national recognition to the six organisa- tions previously recognised in respect of manual workers.

Certain of my hon. Friends have taken exception to a particular feature of the Corporation's decision on recognition in respect of clerical, supervisory and technical grades, namely, that branches of the six are to be given local recognition even at plants where the A.S.T.M.S. and the C.A.W.U. are now recognised and that the six should be given every reasonable facility for recruitment and employees encouraged to join an appropriate union of the six. This has been construed in some quarters as an invitation to poaching of one union's members by another, and as tantamount to denying employees the right to join the union of their choice.

I think the House is aware that my right hon. Friend is currently engaged on discussions of this question of trade union recognition in the nationalised steel industry with the organisations concerned, and the House will understand that, in the circumstances, I cannot therefore comment on this particular issue. I think that it would nevertheless be right for me to inform the House that my right hon. Friend has been assured by the Corporation that while, in its view, rationalisation of trade union and negotiating structures would bring considerable benefits to the industry, it recognises that progress must necessarily be a gradual development and can be achieved only with the co-operation of all those concerned.

The Corporation has also assured my right hon. Friend that it has not thought of encouraging poaching of one union's members by another, which would involve the poaching union in a breach of the obligation to observe the Bridlington principles laid down by the T.U.C. I understand that the Corporation will be issuing guidance to local managements which will remove any doubt which exists on the Corporation's attitude on this matter. The Corporation has also assured my right hon. Friend that it regards the choice of union as a matter entirely for the individual employee.

I should like to assure the House that my right hon. Friends the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity and the Minister of Power are both keeping a close watch on the situation. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power made clear in reply to a Question yesterday, while he is generally responsible for the nationalised steel industry, he has no power to give the Corporation specific directions on this issue. So far as my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State is concerned, the House will be aware that the A.S.T.M.S. and the Clerical and Administrative Workers Union have both informed her that they are in dispute with the Corporation on this matter. She met representatives of the two unions on Monday, 27th May. She has also seen today representatives of the Corporation. In view of the close interest which the T.U.C. has taken in this problem, she hopes to have an early discussion with T.U.C. representatives, including representatives of the other unions concerned.

I will refer to the specific point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar. We raised with the British Steel Corporation the question of the Foremen's and Staff Mutual Benefit Society. It gave us an assurance that it has ceased to recruit members to that organisation and is seeking ways and means to wind up its association with it while at the same time having due regard to any accrued pensions. Here is a clear cut severance. I hope that will give my hon. Friend some assurance.

One general point I make in conclusion. Our tradition in industrial relations has been essentially a pragmatic and practical one. This undoubtedly has been one of the strengths of our system. Consistent with this there has been a reluctance to try to set out general principles and guidelines for recognition problems which have been regarded as an area in which the only satisfactory solution was for the parties themselves to reach their own decision. One result of this has been that recognition issues have perhaps too often turned in the last resort on the ability of a union to mount a demonstration of industrial strength which would convince the employer that he had no practical alternative but to grant recognition.

As the House will know, a great deal of evidence on recognition problems has been presented to the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associa- tions, and the tenor of some of it has been that there would be advantages in an alternative approach to recognition problems which placed less of a premium on industrial militancy. The Royal Commisison's Report will shortly be published. I am certain that we can expect it to give valuable guidance on this question which will help us to assess, and I would hope, to improve our present practice on these difficult problems.

In the light of what I have said about the efforts of my right hon. Friend, I hope that my hon. Friends will urge restraint on their members pending the outcome of the discussions.

2.8 a.m.

Mr. Donald Coleman (Neath)

The House is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Ted Fletcher) for raising this matter tonight. Rightly and properly he has expressed the concern of his members. However, I feel it necessary on this occasion to take note of the other side of the coin and also to take into account the position of other trade unions in the steel industry, which have a far more substantial membership among the clerical, technical and administrative grades in the industry. We should also put on record the efforts of these organisations such as mine, the British Iron and Steel and Kindred Trades Association, which has a registered membership in the industry of about 12,000, and I advise my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) that we do organise these technical staffs. As a metallurgist I speak in this House for my trade union. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and my other hon. Friends will be delighted to welcome the candidate now standing in the Sheffield, Brightside by-election into this House as one of our colleagues. He, too, is in the steel industry and is in the grade of worker we are talking about. This is an indication of the kind of membership we have in the Iron and Steel Trades Federation.

Mr. George Lawson (Motherwell)

Would my hon. Friend agree that every effort should be made by all the trade unions concerned to bring about a happy solution of this problem which cannot but do great harm to the steel industry if in a dispute of this sort they cannot find a way of avoiding a strike which I understand is today starting in my part of the country?

Mr. Coleman

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The requirement of the Steel Corporation was to consider the organisations which would be appropriate in the steel industry to organise these workers but the Corporation did not consult with one organisation only but with the Trades Union Congress. The consultations which have gone on in the Congress have resulted in the recommendation made by the T.U.C. The organisation we have in the industry has been built up over many years at a time when we did not have, as we have now, an employer who is compelled by Act of Parilament to grant trade union recognition. It was built up at a time when we were having to fight employers in their implacable resistance to staff organisation. We would be very wrong to do anything which would encourage strife within the industry among this grade of workers, whom it has been very difficult to bring into trade union organisation.

We ought to remember the work of the Iron and Steel Trades Federation, the Transport and General Workers' Union and the Municipal and General Workers Union, who went out and sought membership at times when it was extremely difficult to get these people in. I say to those in these grades in this industry, be wise, you now have your opportunity, organise.

The debate having been concluded, the motion for the adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Mr. SPEAKER suspended the sitting of the House at twelve minutes past Two o'clock till Ten o'clock this day, pursuant to Order.