UNION MEMBERSHIP (PERSONAL CASE) (Hansard, 7 May 1969)

§ Sir Cyril Osborne (Louth)
I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the servants of the House for raising an Adjournment debate at so late an hour, and I am sorry for myself, too, but I wish to raise a case of petty trade union 618 tyranny against a constituent of mine which has been going on for 18 years, and which I am sure responsible trade union officials would not wish to continue. I have been in correspondence with the Ministry for many years about the case and we have got no further, so I promised my constituent that I would raise it in the House, and I feel morally bound to do so.
The man is so nervous about his future employment that he has begged me not to disclose his name. All other particulars I am prepared to give, and his name and address are known to the Ministry. This constituent was trained in a Leicester training centre in 1951 and passed out as a trainee fitter, first-class, in that year. He tried to get a job when he was discharged and was unable to do so because he could not obtain membership of the A.E.U. I did my best for him in 1952, and, as a result of the publicity given to his case, the local officials 619 softened their attitude and allowed him to earn a living.
For eight years he carried on his job as a fitter-turner and did excellent work, which is a tribute to the training which he had received. Then the firm closed down and he had to seek another job. Luckily, he got an appropriate job with the Central Electricity Generating Board. The union gave him a Section I card, which made him a full member, but after he had been only a week in his job the local official demanded his card back. This made it impossible for the man to get the proper job for which he was qualified.
He is not an anti-trade unionist. He wants to join the union and to be a good fee-paying member. After he had been in his latest job for only a week, the local secretary demanded his card back and said that he would be classed as a dilutee. That was after he had done six years of practical work, which seemed to him a grave injustice and makes the training centre certificate almost worthless. But he liked the trade and decided to stick to it. The people in the power station said that he was a good man. From time to time when the charge hand was not there he was made charge hand, he was such a good fellow and did his work so well.
Then, there was another change and a new charge hand had to be appointed. He applied for the post but did not get it. That was the luck of the draw. But the A.E.U. shop steward got the job and then told this man that he would not take orders from a trainee. This is the trouble: the man is classed almost as a second-class citizen—a trainee. The shop steward suggested to the others that they should treat him the same.
The man would not accept what he calls the victimisation which resulted and he appealed to me again. He is now with the Grimsby power station, which may be closed before long. He has been offered other jobs because of his good record. He is a good workman, no trouble with his workmates and perfectly satisfactory to his employers. But because he will not be given his full trade union membership card, he cannot get a proper job. It is against this petty tyranny that I want to protest on his behalf.
620 I come to the background of this matter. Back in 1952, the local paper said this of him: Though he holds a Government certificate of proficiency, which seems to qualify him for a skilled job"— Mr. X— has tried in vain since March to get work as a centre lathe turner. He went through the Ministry of Labour training course. 'Then', he said, 'my troubles began. After starting with a job in a non-union house I found nobody would take me on without a union card. What it amounts to is that I cannot get a job without a card and the Amalgamated Engineering Union refuses me a card unless I have a job. If the Government vocational training scheme is producing any more dead-end kids like this, it is wasting public money'". That is the protest I make. The report continued: A Ministry of Labour spokesman said in London last night —this was in 1952— The engineering unions co-operate closely with the department in placing trainees. Cases of difficulty occasionally arise, however … I know of 5,000 cases, from the Department. The newspaper report continues: and the Ministry will certainly inquire into this particular case". That was in 1952. They are still inquiring. They have still done nothing for my constituent, who feels that he has been unfairly victimised.
In 1960 my constituent wrote this letter to me: In 1952 you made it possible for me to obtain work in the engineering industry by forcing the A.E.U. to honour its agreement —that is what I am after: that they should honour their agreement with successive Governments— by making me a member after I had taken a Government training course. The work I obtained after that I held for five years until the power station, at which I was, closed. I applied for skilled work with the Electricity Generating Board and was selected from a number of other applicants. Immediately the union knew about this they made the employer sign a paper to say that if there were any redundancy I should be the first to go. This situation will arise in the next few years. I am not upset about this, but it means in fact I can never settle in any job no matter how good I may be. That seems grossly unfair. He continued: But the A.E.U. rule book clearly states that a man can enter section 1—full membership—if he produces satisfactory evidence of having worked five years at one or more of the fully skilled trades— 621 He has been doing it for 17 years, but according to my constituent the rule book says that after five years he is entitled to a full membership card. He has done 17 years and he is still victimised and still denied the right to earn his living.
He said: —of which I have done eight years. —at that time. I applied and got section 1 membership, but later it was taken back from me. I do not know if I am blacklisted because you helped me before. If that is so, it is a scandal and a reflection on membership of the House.
Over the years I have done my best to help this man. I put down a Question to the Minister on Monday, 22nd January last year to ask … which of the craft trade unions have guaranteed to him that they will accept for membership of their union men who become competent through the Government training centres, and be allowed to fill the skilled jobs for which they have been properly trained. That is the raison d'être for the centres. If when they have passed through the centres, the men are not allowed to get their cards and are not allowed to earn their living through the skills which they have acquired, then we are wasting public money in keeping these centres open.
The Parliamentary Secretary replied: All the unions concerned with the acceptance of men trained at Government Training Centres are co-operating at national level. That is true. There is no trouble at national level. The trouble is at local level. He continued: They are unable to guarantee that all such trainees will be accepted by their district committees or local branches, but in fact very few trainees are prevented by trade union opposition from taking up employment in their training trades."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd January, 1968; Vol. 757, c. 23–24.] The trouble is at local level. It is with the little local Hitlers—and I do not say that offensively—the little men who abuse the power which they have, against the wishes and traditions of the trade unions. I cannot see any responsible trade union official wanting to deny a trainee the right to earn his living.
I have a letter of 15th May, 1968, in which the Government say there are 5,000 cases in the country of this nature, and yet the Parliamentary Secretary says there are very few cases. There are 5,000 cases known to the Ministry at the 622 present time who, like my constituent, are denied the right to a living.
To support his case, my constituent produced a letter from the Central Electricity Generating Board dated 30th January last year, which says You will know that you have been employed as a mechanical fitter since February 1958 that is his second job and the superintendent has been satisfied with your work as a fitter and has upgraded you to chargehand on a number of occasions. Your exact status in your union is a matter for the union to decide, but the Board regards you as a skilled craftsman. If after 16, 17 or 18 years a man is regarded as a skilled craftsman, it is a scandal that he is not allowed by some local official to earn his living and act as a skilled man. He wrote to me again on 22nd April this year, because the man is worried almost out of his wits by his own future and the future of his wife and children, and he says After 17 years as a skilled man I am still smitten by a dilutee tag, as the superintendent said he could sack me tomorrow and start a new apprentice and have the backing of the A.E.U. When I asked him to prove this, he showed me a letter from the A.E.U. telling him they could supply him with a time-served man. This is unfair to the type of good men being turned out of the training centres.
I then had a letter from the Ministry of Labour dated 15th May, 1968, when I had raised the matter again privately. I have a long list of correspondence on this case. The Parliamentary Secretary was good enough to say this: I was greatly distressed to learn of Mr. X's difficulties. I should think he jolly well ought to be. This is 16 years after the man had qualified and been passed out as a good craftsman. This is the core of the problem, and this is on the Department's own paper Grimsby is, I am afraid, one of a number of areas, of which the worst are Manchester, Tyneside and Scotland, in which there has been some resistance to particular grades of Government Training Centre trainees, especially general fitters and centre lathe turners. It is still true that very few trainees in Great Britain as a whole are, in fact, prevented by trade union opposition from working in their training trades. In one paragraph of the letter it says there are very few, but later on in the 623 same letter it says there are 5,000 of them. The letter goes on Official T.U.C. policy is doing its best to overcome such resistance I am grateful for that, and I believe they are honest in their attempts at headquarters to end this scandal— and to this end has gone on record in the T.U.C. Economic Review of 1968 as saying: 'There is no justification for any general bar on the acceptance of adult trainees in any area of the country'. This is what the T.U.C. believes. The Parliamentary Secretary then adds: It would, however, be unrealistic to expect attitudes of those areas which tend to be resistant to certain categories of G.T.C. trainees to change overnight. It is ridiculous to talk about their attitude changing overnight when in this case I have been pressing for 16, 17 or 18 years, and I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that my constituent has shown the greatest patience in this matter. The Parliamentary Secretary went on to say: There has recently been a certain amount of criticism within the Amalgamated Union of Engineering and Foundry Workers itself of this system, and I understand that the A.E.F.'s Conference in Eastbourne during the last week in April a move to give immediate skilled status to 5,000 dilutees"— that is the 5,000 which the Department acknowledges— and at the same time to end the Dilution Agreement, was narrowly defeated. This is the tragedy. Responsible trade union leaders want to put this injustice right, but certain of the irresponsibles will not let them do it. The letter goes on to say: Had it been successful, it would have regularised the position of existing dilutees without, however, providing any safeguards to future G.T.C. entrants into the engineering industry. All I am saying is that the 5,000 admitted by the Department shows the size of the national problem. I am speaking for my own constituent.
My constituent wrote to the Department of Employment and Productivity, and on 27th May last year he received this extraordinary reply: The real difficulty is, as you know, that under the long-standing Dilution Agreement … men who have acquired their knowledge of a skilled trade through G.T.C. training have no automatic right to full skilled membership. 624 This is what I am asking for, that they should have an automatic right, because if they do not they are denied the right to earn a living by using the skills which the Government have given them.
The letter went on to say: … it is our hope that it will make helpful recommendations … that men trained at G.T.C.s are fully accepted as skilled after a reasonable period of practical experience in industry. The trade union course is 5 years. I do not know what the Department thinks about this, but my man has had 17 years' experience. Does not the Minister think that a card ought to be granted to him?
My constituent was not satisfied, and he wrote to the Department again. In its reply of 26th June the Department put its finger on the matter when it wrote to my constituent: I do not think I can explain the findings of the Royal Commission's Report, insofar as they affect your particular position, better than by quoting the relevant passage in paragraphs 345 to 348. It runs as follows: 'Paragraph 345. We had evidence from a number of sources of obstacles being placed in the way of employment as skilled workers of persons trained at Government Training Centres. Paragraph 346. We find it deplorable that such difficulties should be encountered'. I say a hearty "hear, hear" to that on behalf of my constituent. Paragraph 347. We think it wrong"— and I agree— that dilutees should be regarded as a class whose status, work and pay can at any time be drastically reduced. Finally, the letter said: The recommendation about an appeal procedure in cases of arbitrary refusal of admission to a trade union, or the skilled section of a union, would require legislation, and the Government will announce in due course, in the light of consultations, its decision about whether to introduce legislation on these lines. When are we to get that legislation? That is a promise that it is to come. When will it be introduced so that this injustice can be put right?
My man is frightened of losing his job. He is frightened of giving his name. At the end of a long letter to me he said: … if you get me full union recognition and get rid of the dilutee tag I think after all this time I shall believe in miracles again. He is a human man who will say that.
I beg the Minister, because of his own recollection of unemployment in Jarrow 625 when he was a boy, to help men like this to obtain proper union cards which will enable them to earn decent livings.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. E. Fernyhough)
I have, of course, some sympathy with the constituent of the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne). But I hope that he will appreciate that he supported a Government from 1951 until 1964 when his constituent suffered the same disability that he has raised tonight, and although I am sure his Government shared his feelings about what he regards as the great injustice to his constituent, even his Government were not able in the period from 1951 to 1964 to do anything which would remove his constituent's grievance.
So I think that we start off by accepting that this is not a problem which has arisen as a consequence of the indifference of this Government—

§ Sir C. Osborne
Agreed.

§ Mr. Fernyhough
It has been with us throughout the post-war years.
However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will readily accept that his Private Notice Question about training centres was, to put it mildly, exaggerated He must know that 75 per cent. of the men who go through training centres are placed in positions before they leave the training centres. Another 15 per cent. are placed within three months of leaving the training centres. By and large, I hope that he will not again suggest that we should close down the training centres—

§ Sir C. Osborne
I am not saying that.

§ Mr. Fernyhough
But the hon. Gentleman has suggested this.

§ Sir C. Osborne
No.

§ Mr. Fernyhough
He must never suggest it. We are looking at a relatively small problem, although I accept that, within these numbers, there is great human anxiety and apprehension. We are desperately anxious to resolve the problem.
The hon. Gentleman read paragraphs 345, 347 and 348 of the Donovan Report. Perhaps I might read a little of the White Paper, "In Place of Strife".
626 which deals with problems of this kind and gives an idea of what the Government intend to do in the forthcoming legislation.
On adult training, paragraph 51 says: Both the Government and industry already train adults to the skilled level, and the need for this will continue to grow. However, in the engineering industry in particular, all such trainees are normally registered as 'dilutees' and opposition is still found in some areas to allowing them to exercise fully the skills they have acquired, or to have the appropriate status when they are empoyed on skilled work. … Acceptance of adult trainees is important not only in order to improve industrial efficiency and regional development, but also to ensure to all employees the right to advance themselves by training. Paragraph 52 goes on: The Government attaches great importance to the review of dilution agreements to ensure that they do not impede the acceptance of adults trained to the skilled level (including Government Training Centre trainees). It believes that the least that is required now is the freer implementation of existing dilution agreements, but also that in the longer term these should be replaced by more flexible arrangements designed to see that men and women are employed according to their ability to do skilled jobs. For this reason the Government has welcomed the recent statement by the Central Training Council on the urgent need to develop new attitudes to training for skilled work, and is discussing with the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. the best way of making progress, on the problem of adult trainees. In addition it will be open to the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Central Training Council to seek the advice of the C.I.R. on the industrial relations aspects of training problems, including dilution agreements. Paragraph 114 reads: These reforms will provide additional safeguards for union members"— and the hon. Member's constituent is a union member: and do much to enable unions themselves to escape unjustified suspicions, but for men to be seen to deal fairly with members it is necessary that the administration of their rules should be subject to independent review. This does not imply that there is any reason to suspect frequent injustice, any more than the creation of the Parliamentary Commissionery implies that maladministration is common in Government Departments. But it is right and healthy in a democracy that any powerful body should be subject to outside scrutiny where abuse of its power can most harm the individual. Paragraph 115 states: Complaints against trade unions by individuals who have no access to, or have exhausted, the union's own appeals procedure will be considered in the first instance by the Registrar"— 627 This would be the case: who will have the duty of advising the complainants and trying to promote an amicable settlement. In some cases where this cannot be achieved there is already a legal remedy in the ordinary courts, but in others there is no remedy at present. The Industrial Relations Bill will provide that complaints by individuals of unfair or arbitrary action by trade unions resulting in substantial injustice may be referred to the Industrial Board referred to in paragraph 62. Paragraph 116 states: In cases heard by the Board, every opportunity will be given to the trade unions concerned to prepare their own answers to complaints. The object will be to ensure fair play and justice, rather than to put obstacles in the way of unions. If complaints are found to be justified, the Board will have power to award damages, or admission or re-instatement in a union. What we have said in the White Paper will go a very long way towards meeting this problem, but the hon. Member must 628 understand that much of this problem arises out of the fears and apprehensions, born of history, of the men concerned: men who are insecure; men who have suffered, as some people have in the trade union field, in days gone by. They know full well that they had to set up protective measures in order to look after themselves. We accept that that ought to be a bygone thing but, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, it is not easy, when prejudices are deepseated and longstanding, to make them disappear by, as it were, a wave of the wand—