EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIATIONS AND OTHER ORGANISATIONS OF EMPLOYERS (Hansard, 10 February 1971)

§ Mr. Ashton
I have been asked by a body which does not have a representative in the House of Commons to bring to the Minister's attention certain anomalies which will arise on the clause.
Kangaroo courts and star chambers have been referred to today, but the Bill makes no mention of the disciplinary bodies which many employers' associations have. A group of us have tabled an Amendment to Schedule 3, which relates to suspensions or fines imposed on trade unionists by certain employers. Although the Bill provides that unions rules must be approved by the C.I.R., there is no provision that the rules of employers' associations must be so approved.
The rules I have in mind are those of "undisciplinary" bodies, from which a man can obtain a decision as to whether his suspension or dismissal is unfair.
Under the Bill it will be possible for there to be suspension for 14 days on full pay, followed by another period of suspension for 14 days, rather on the lines of the South Africa detention laws, and the suspension can be continued in perpetuity, 654 even on full pay, without the criticism of unfair dismissal being invoked. An anomaly could arise which is not catered for by the Clause.
I will give two examples of, behaviour which results indisciplinary action. A miner who takes a cigarette down a coalmine can be suspended, fined or dismissed. A trawlerman going on board drunk can be suspended or fined. In each case the trade union representative sits on the disciplinary body.
The Professional Footballers' Association is a trade union affiliated to the T.U.C. It works for a bona fide employers' associations from whose disciplinary court there is no appeal. The employers' association has a disciplinary body for the Football Association and the Football League on which the trade union—the Professional Footballers' Association—is not represented.
A professional footballer can be sent off during a game and, unless he pays the costs of the disciplinary court, he cannot even have a personal hearing. In other words, the court sits in secret without the Press being present and then may sentence him to be suspended for six weeks without pay or to a fine of up to £300 and often the trade unionist is not heard.
10.0 p.m.
That might be fine in the case of Georgie Best, Peter Osgood or someone like that who can afford it, but the Professional Footballers' Association is concerned about the lower-paid players in the fourth division who cannot afford it 655 but who may well have to face, as trade unionists, £70 or £80 costs of the body which sits to sentence them before they can have a personal hearing.
In our view—I am sure that the Minister and hon. Members opposite agree—that is a complete denial of any sort of freedom. In effect, it is worse than a kangaroo court because, at least, at a kangaroo court a man has the right to face his accusers. The professional footballer does not have that right unless he pays for it.
Often, outside evidence such as television films is not admitted in evidence. There have been occasions when the Football Association or the Football League has suspended players for life, taking away their livelihood, following a court case involving bribery or unfair practices, as in the case of Swan, Kaye and Layne. The Professional Footballers' Association in such cases has not even been allowed to represent them at the hearing. It has been a completely open and shut case, without proper representation.

§ Mr. Kenneth Lewis (Rutland and Stamford)
The truth is that every professional football player is permitted to be represented by someone who can speak for him, whether someone in the club or a representative of the Professional Footballers' Association. Furthermore, the statement which the hon. Gentleman has just made is quite contrary to the truth, for, only the other day, when a player was suspended, there was a run-through of the television film in evidence.

§ Mr. Ashton
That is not generally true about the run-through of television films, although it is desired, and Mr. Cliff Lloyd, the secretary of the P.F.A., assures us that players are not allowed to have legal aid or to be legally represented.
It is easy in such circumstances for an employers' association like the Football Association or the Football League to run a disciplinary court which is totally unfair to the trade unionists involved. It may be said that the trade unionists concerned should take industrial action, should refuse to play, or should refuse to sign contracts. But in many cases they sign their contracts at the tender age of 16 or 17, and the registration is held by the club.
656 It is possible for the club to deprive a player of his livelihood simply because he said something on television which the employers do not like. There was the case of Jack Charlton who referred to a certain incident on television, using the same right of free speech which any hon. Member would wish to exercise, but he lost money by being dropped out of the England team because of it, and with no right of appeal because of a rule operated by an employers' association which said that he should not say anything which the employers thought might bring the game into disrepute.
We say that the rule books of employers' associations, too, should be open to examination by a reference to the C.I.R. Also, we draw attention to the suspension tactic, which is not prevalent in just one industry. Just before Christmas, there was the case of Mr. Terry Devey, reported in The Times and covered in full in my local newspaper, the Sheffield Morning Telegraph. I give credit to the investigation which it made.
Terry Devey is a shop steward who was paid £3,000 [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I hope that hon. Members do not think that I am mentioning it because I am having a bitter battle about the "demo" the other night. Compensation of £3,000 was paid to Mr. Terry Devey afer a five-week dispute at Batchelors in Sheffield, which closely affected many of my constituents.
After the men had lost five weeks' strike pay, just before Christmas, the shop steward accepted £3,000 rehabilitation money, as it was called. I do not know whether it was provided in the employers' association rule book that one could break procedures which had been laid down or break the usual methods for settling disputes in that way. It is certainly a tactic which has never been used to my knowledge, and it is one which we do not want to see adopted again. Employers' associations' rule books are far from ideal.
I do not intend to press the matter to a vote, but I hope the Minister will look at the question of suspension, particularly when the trade unionists and the trade unions do not have proper rights of representation.

§ Mr. Swain
My hon. Friend does his homework very diligently in the main, 657 but apparently he has not done so this time. If a man takes a cigarette down a pit, that is a breach of the mines regulations. The manager deals with it, and if the trade union representative thinks that the sentence is too severe, he makes representations to the management. The trade union does not sit on the disciplinary court.

§ Mr. Ashton
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but the fact is that there are the powers to make representations to the management. That is part of the negotiating procedure. But if the Professional Footballers' Association feels that someone has been dealt with too harshly for telling the referee that he does not like his face, the association has no power to appeal against the sentence.
I hope that the Minister will look at this question of suspensions. It could lead to a South African-detention type of law, with 14 days, even on full pay, renewed every 14 days, without the employer bothering to dismiss the man or go to the court. Under the existing set-up, the matter could not be referred to the court, because the man would still be employed and the employer would still be paying his stamp and, in some cases, his basic wage. It is a major anomaly that should be examined.

§ The Solicitor-General
If I respond briefly, it is not out of any disrespect for the hon. Gentleman's point, because I know that it represents the same argument as underlies the Amendment he has tabled to Schedule 3.
The rôle played by employers' associations in some situations in disciplining employees is distinct from any provisions in the Bill. The provisions of the Clause are those which regulate and define employers' associations. Such an organisation vis-à-vis its own members must comply with the same guiding principles under Clause 65, and cannot be registered as an employers' association unless it is shown to have rules conforming to it. I take the hon. Gentleman's point that the fact that the employers' association, if registered, and even if not registered, is required to be fair to its own members, does not meet the situation he is putting where an association has disciplinary or semi-disciplinary powers over employees. This situation exists in some places, and 658 in some cases it is a subject either of collective bargaining or statutory regulation.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) spoke about the coal industry, where it is clear by Statute and collective bargaining that unfair disciplinary measures by the colliery manager can be challenged by the union on behalf of the worker concerned. if what the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) says is right, it is plain that there is no comparable machinery in respect of the professional footballer vis-à-vis the association in question. It would be difficult to resolve that in the context of the Bill, because we are not here seeking to regulate relations between employers and individuals by setting up statutory schemes for discipline comparable, for examples, with that set up under the National Docks Labour Board. It requires a very special exercise of analysis to devise something like that.
Quite apart from the relevance, admissibility or acceptability of the hon. Gentleman's point in the context of this legislation, certainly the Department of Employment would be more than willing to meet such people as are appropriate to investigate further the facts underlying the point the hon. Gentleman raised to see whether, even if not within the Bill, it is something in respect of which help or guidance could be given.
I hope that, in the circumstances, that will be regarded as a sufficient answer to the hon. Gentleman's point.