§ Mr. BrittanI beg to move Amendment No. 16, in page 8, line 41, after 'union', insert 'or an employer'.
The amendment seeks to permit employers as well as employees to refer recognition disputes to the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service under the provisions of Clause 11. This is one of the matters which have caused the greatest concern in industry, as the representations we have received make clear. It is widely felt in industry that to have a provision which allows a recognition issue to be referred to the service by the employees—by the unions—but not by the employers is a one-sided, unfair approach to the problem.
None of the explanations given in Committee has convinced us to the contrary. The main objection to the amendment appears to be that there are other provisions in the Bill enabling the matter to be dealt with by employers. In particular, in Committee reference was made to 1966 Clause 2 which enables conciliation to take place, to Clause 4 which enables advice to be given and to Clause 5, which enables inquiries to be made. All of those can, in the appropriate circumstances, be useful to employees and can be taken account of and put into operation in a situation where the essential debate and dispute relates to recognition.
But such provisions are no substitute for a formal reference under Clause 11. Under such a reference the matter is fully investigated by the service and a formal recommendation can be made. That is quite a different matter from the advice, inquiry or conciliation referred to. It has been said on behalf of the Government, and might be said by them again tonight, that the only point of a reference under Clause 11 is if it imports with it the possibility of the use of the machinery referred to in Clause 16 for the compulsory reference of the matter to the Central Arbitration Committee if the employer does not agree to the recommendation made by the service.
It is said that the procedure is inappropriate for a case that has been referred by an employer. With respect, I do not accept that that is in any way a conclusive argument, because even if it were considered inappropriate for there to be any comparable enforcement machinery whereby an employer could take some steps to encourage a recalcitrant employee who has refused to conform to the recommendations of the service to do so, I believe that there is an advantage in the employer at least having the power to brandish a full-scale recommendation of the service rather than merely having to rely on its good offices in providing conciliation or advice as is provided for in earlier parts of the Bill. Even if the Minister's argument was right, that would not be a reason for refusing to allow employers to refer matters to the ACAS for determination under Clause 11.
This one-sidedness in drafting and application has been the cause of deep resentment in industry. Coming so early in the Bill, it has poisoned and coloured the attitude of many people in industry to the Bill. It has caused them to look at the remaining clauses of the Bill with much greater suspicion than would otherwise have been the case. That damage has already been done. It cannot wholly 1967 be rectified. However, it could be mitigated to some extent if the Minister were able, even at this late stage, to accept the amendment.
§ Mr. BoothIn the light of our discussions in Committee I reconsidered the issue whether employers should be enabled to refer recognition issues to the ACAS in a way broadly similar to the provisions made under Clauses 11 and 12 for unions to seek recognition by a recalcitrant employer.
As the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) referred to part of the argument which I used in Committee, I hope that he will not object if I point out that I used another argument. The employer is not in the same position as a union. He is in a position to decide whether to grant an application made by a union, or even one of two unions, to him for recognition, and, by doing so, to put the onus on a union's refusal to use the procedures laid down in the Bill. I reconsidered the point. In Committee I indicated that there were other ways in which the employer could use the provisions of the Bill to obtain guidance on recognition.
Where a dispute could arise as a result of unions' conflicting recognition, the conciliation provisions in Clause 2 can be used. If the employer wanted advice he could use the provisions of Clause 4(1)(b). However, if he wanted to brandish a piece of paper and say "This is the view of the service on the question of whom I recognise", he would have to turn to Clause 5. There is some doubt whether an employer can be sure of obtaining that piece of paper. If he obtained an inquiry under Clause 5, the service, under the terms of Clause 5(2)(b), must send the draft of its findings to all the parties who appear to the service to be concerned, and take account of their views before deciding whether or not to publish it.
There are those who take the view that this might be interpreted to mean that any of the parties concerned might have a veto if the ACAS took the view that if one objected it could not publish. I am by no means certain that the ACAS would take that view. It might consider that in spite of a certain objection or objections it should still publish in the interests of improving industrial relations.
1968 Because of those considerations and my unwillingness to admit that there is at least room for interpretation or doubt on the issue whether the employer could get the piece of paper containing the decision under Clause 5, we are in the process of considering whether employers could use the provisions of Clauses 11 and 12 as relevant.
Many employers' recognition references will relate to inter-union disputes. That was common ground between us in the area in which we were concerned in Committee. Arrangements already exist for dealing with some disputes involving the TUC and the unions through the use of the Bridlington and Croydon procedures. Before putting anything into the Bill which might affect those procedures, the Government would want to complete consultations with the TUC. If, as a result of such consultations, a way can be found to accommodate satisfactorily both the voluntary TUC procedures and any new statutory procedures, the Government will consider bringing forward an appropriate amendment at a later stage of the proceedings on the Bill.
§ Mr. BrittanI am most grateful to the Minister for what he has just said. He has taken the matter considerably further forward. We are concerned only with the situation in which the Bridlington and Croydon procedures, in so far as we are talking about disputes to which they relate, are not working, perhaps because they have not been invoked by the unions concerned. Where those procedures are working we do not wish to stand in their way or impede them.
If, therefore, the Minister will look into the use of Clause 11, at the same time making sure that there is no conflict with the Bridlington and Croydon agreements, we are more than content and shall look forward to hearing what the consultations produce. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.