GRUNWICK PROCESSING LABORATORIES LTD (Hansard, 20 December 1976)

§ Mr. Ted Fletcher (Darlington)

In moving the adjournment of the House I wish to call attention to the situation which has arisen at the firm of Grunwick Film Processing, in Willesden, following a strike by 200 workers at that establishment for union recognition. The firm is in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson). I know that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) have done everything they can to resolve this dispute and the workers at the firm have paid tribute to their efforts.

However, this dispute is much more than a local constituency matter. In my opinion the management has clearly breached the provisions of the Employment Protection Act, and if its present attitude is allowed to prevail it will be a signal for every firm which refuses to 401 recognise unions to drive a horse and cart through the Employment Protection Act.

The dispute began on 25th August, when 200 workers, most of them of Asian origin, walked out of the firm in support of a demand that their union—APEX—should be recognised by the management. The need for a trade union is self-evident when one considers the wages and working conditions at Grunwick. For example many of the workers receive, or did receive before the dispute, £25 for a 35-hour week if they worked in the office. If they were process workers they received £28 for a 40-hour week. They were compelled to work overtime, as this was set out in the terms and conditions of their employment. There was no 40-hour week, in effect, because any employee could be told five minutes before the end of a normal day's work to do compulsory overtime.

Workers in this establishment have to raise their hands to go to the toilet. Some of them have been dismissed instantly for trivial reasons. None of them could take holidays in the summer; they were compelled to take them in winter. Over the past two years, in spite of the £6 wage ceiling and the subsequent 4½ per cent., these employees only had an increase of between £2 and £3. In short, this employer paid poverty-line wages, and forced workers to work in feudal conditions, Also there have been reports that the management is abusive and uses obscene language to work people. This has been a complaint from the works committee to the management.

These are the reasons why the workers decided to join a union. The response of the management to the dispute was that it promptly sacked all those who went out on strike and resolutely refused to discuss the dispute with either APEX or ACAS. Throughout the management adopted a belligerent attitude towards the strikers. Strikers were abused and threatened with black-listing. Photographs and films were taken of the pickets, and on two occasions the pickets were run down by management cars. No action was taken by the police and, according to reports which I have heard, the police give the impression that they are employed by the company and not the public.

On 29th October, the national executive of the Union of Post Office Workers 402 decided to support the strike by stopping all mail from reaching the company. A debate took place in the House on 4th November on the union's action and the Minister said that agreement had been reached between the union and the management of the company. He said that the company would allow ACAS to conduct a ballot among those inside and outside the company and that it would abide by the result. In view of that assurance the Union of Post Office Workers agreed to call off its sympathy action.

At that time the National Association for Freedom announced that it intended to take action in the High Court against the Union of Post Office Workers and the Post Office. Yesterday, I read in the Press that this organisation is connected with the United States CIA in some way. That is the type of organisation that gives support of this reactionary management.

On 12th November, APEX complained to ACAS that the company is delaying and will not agree to hold the ballot until the following Wednesday. The deadline passed and the company still delayed. On 19th November the company refused entry to an ACAS representative. It said that it was consulting a QC and that it would contact ACAS in due course. On 22nd November the managing director rang ACAS and said that he objected to the ballot on legal grounds and that a letter was on its way to ACAS which should arrive the following day. No letter arrived on 23rd, 24th or 25th November. On 26th November, after ACAS rang the company to say that a messenger was being sent, the contents of the letter became known. The company objected to a ballot of strikers because it claimed that they were no longer workers, having been sacked.

This is a long history of procrastination to avoid a ballot of employees because the company knows that a ballot will go against it.

The latest report is that on 10th December, when the General Secretary of APEX was advised by ACAS officials that they met the management of the company that day, but that the company was still raising objections. The management has agreed in principle that the matter will be proceeded with under a Section II inquiry but has challenged the 403 wording of the questionnaire because it does not want any reference made to APEX. ACAS will not agree to the reference being deleted. The managing director is still consulting his legal advisors.

I raise the matter because I want to know what action the Minister has taken to enforce the provisions of the Employment Protection Act.

Since the strike started, those employees who have remained at work have received a 15 per cent. all-round increase. Those on £25 have been given a £6 increase£conditional upon their voting against a union. The pickets advise me that they have evidence that pressure is being brought to bear on the employees to vote against a union in return for wage increases.

This is much more than a local dispute. The TUC is backing the strikers. Mr. Len Murray, the General Secretary, has addressed a meeting of the strikers. It is unprecedented for the General Secretary of the TUC to address a meeting concerned with a local dispute. However, the TUC recognises that a point of principle is involved here, and that if the firm is successful in delaying a ballot through procrastination, this will destroy the intentions of Section 11 of the Employment Protection Act, and it will be a signal for other firms to follow the lead that this firm has given, backed by the reactionary organisation, the National League for Freedom. How ironic that title sounds when one is talking about the freedom of individuals to join a union.

Nevertheless, I believe that the Department has some responsibility to see that Acts passed by this House are carried into effect. I know that the Department has done some sterling work in the short time in which the Act has been in operation, but I cannot escape the conclusion that it has been dragging its feel in this dispute. Now that I have raised the matter, I hope to get some assurances from the Minister that he is prepared vigorously to pursue this case, that the Department will explore every possible avenue to see that this firm carries out the intention of the Act, that a ballot will be held, and that we can get away from the Dickensian systems of management with which we are still faced within this particular firm.

404 I hope that I can get the assurances that I require from the Minister that progress will be made and that this dispute will be resolved.

§ The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Harold Walker)

All of us in this House who have taken an interest in the dispute at Grunwick Processing Laboratories should be indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fletcher) for raising this subject this morning. All of us on the Government side of the House, and perhaps some Opposition Members, following the disastrous experience of the Industrial Relations Act, are firmly of the view that a voluntary system of industrial relations, based on consent, is the right system in this country. It is the absence of any basis for consent, as shown by the unwillingness of one of the parties to sit down and discuss the issues, which has prolonged this dispute so that it is now about to enter its fifth month.

I should first like to set out the history of this dispute, and the situation as we understand it. The strike began during late August, with the object of securing the reinstatement of a number of employees who, it is alleged, were dismissed unfairly. The strikers, numbering about 150 of the firm's 450 employees, were themselves dismissed shortly after the strike began. The strike was at a very early stage made official by the Association of Professional, Executive, Clerical and Computer Staff—APEX—which is claiming recognition and the reinstatement of the dismissed workers.

Following the refusal of the company to negotiate directly with APEX, the union sought the help of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service in seeking an early solution. ACAS several times tried to persuade the company to accept its help and meet the union, but the company refused each time to meet the union. Had the employer agreed to meet APEX, either directly or under the chairmanship of ACAS, I am confident that this dispute could have been resolved at a much earlier stage, and without the prospect of lasting damage to industrial relations within the company, as now seems likely.

As APEX was unable to persuade the company to negotiate, on 15th October 405 the union referred the recognition issue to ACAS under Section 11 of the Employment Protection Act. This procedure provides for an inquiry by ACAS, if the issue cannot be resolved by conciliation, leading to a written report which can include specific recommendations for recognition. ACAS was unable to make much progress on the recognition question during the second half of October. However, following an appeal by the TUC to affiliated unions to help APEX. the Union of Post Office Workers decided on 29th October to authorise its members not to handle mail to and from the company, and this action was imposed on 1st November. Two days later, the company agreed, for the first time, to co-operate with the inquiries of ACAS into the recognition issue. The following day the Union of Post Office Workers instructed its members to resume handling the company's mail. This aspect of the dispute was discussed in the House in an emergency debate on 4th November, and I do not wish to add anything to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I said then.

In the light of these events, I hoped that ACAS would be able to proceed with its inquiry into the recognition issue, with the full co-operation of the employer, and that the dispute would soon be over. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington has told the House, that has not proved to be the case.

At this stage I ought, perhaps, to describe to the House how ACAS goes about dealing with recognition issues which are referred to it under the provisions of the Employment Protection Act. When such an issue is referred to ACAS, the Service is placed under a general requirement to examine it, consult those it considers to be involved and to make any inquiries it thinks necessary. The procedure on a reference is largely for ACAS to decide, but at all times the Service is required to encourage a settlement by agreement and, where appropriate, to promote such a settlement by conciliation. If it is not possible to settle an issue in this way the service is required to prepare a formal report setting out its findings and recommendations for recognition, if any. The process of discussion, investigation and inquiry necessary before a recommondation can 406 be made, is bound to take some time. It is obviously desirable from everyone's point of view that this work should be done thoroughly.

ACAS's recommendations cannot be enforced directly, but if an employer does not comply with ACAS's recommendation for recognition the union concerned may seek a unilateral award of terms and conditions for the workers in question from the Central Arbitration Committee. Such an award will be enforceable in the courts. We believe that these arrangements will be more likely to secure the establishment of stable collective bargaining arrangements and put effective pressure on an employer to negotiate, than a direct requirement, statutorily enforceable, that the employer recognises a union. Moreover, it will in appropriate cases at least provide something equivalent to the fruits of collective bargaining for the workers in question.

The recognition provisions of the Employers Protection Act are still relatively new and we have had only limited experience of how they operate in practice. However, there seems little doubt about their popularity. ACAS has already received a total of 430 formal applications about recognition issues in the first 10 months that the provisions have been in operation. So far, 81 have been settled by conciliation, of which approximately two-thirds resulted in the union being recognised. Eight have been the subject of a formal report.

In the Grunwick case, ACAS has discussed with the employer and with APEX how it intends to proceed with its inquiries, including the questions to be put to the workers in a questionnaire. The arrangements for the inquiry have been complicated by the need to translate the questions into Gujerati, which is the first language of many of the company's employees. I have been informed that the company has raised a number of objections to ACAS's proposals, relating particularly to the questionnaire that the service plans to put to the workers. I hope that the House will understand that it would not be right for me to go into the details of the objections raised by the company. ACAS is an independent body—its independence is clearly defined in the Employment Protection Act—and I very much hope that the objections raised by the company will be speedily resolved, 407 although I have heard rumours that the company, with the support of the National Association for Freedom, are contemplating legal action against ACAS to support their complaints. It is not the first time that this ultra right wing organisation has sought to interfere in industrial disputes. Some hon. Members of the Opposition occupy leading rôles in this pernicious organisation. I understand that over 60 of the workers dismissed by Grunwicks have made complaints of unfair dismissal to an industrial tribunal. I have every confidence in the ability of ACAS to deal with this matter.

What, then, are the lessons to be drawn from this dispute? As the House knows it has long been a tradition that Ministers should neither support nor condemn one side or the other in an industrial dispute, particularly when pay policy considerations are not at stake. This is a tradition that I support, for ministerial interventions on one side or the other rarely help resolve disputes, and can sometimes make them worse. However, I think that there are good reasons for departing from tradition in the case of this dispute. As I said in my opening remarks, our voluntary system of industrial relations depends on consent, and a willingness to give and take on both sides. Here we have a dispute where I am sure that everyone, even including the company, would agree that a substantial number of the workers are members of a trade union, and the company, faced with four months of industrial action, has never, at any stage, been willing to sit down and discuss the situation with the trade union. At no stage does the company seem to have shown any real willingness even to attempt to explore how a reasonable settlement to the dispute might be reached. And all this despite the support which the dismissed workers have received from fellow trade unionists, including the General Secretary of the TUC.

408 The company may feel that in the short term it will be able to resist APEX and the strikers. I do not know whether or not that will prove to be the case, but I feel sure that the management is neglecting to consider the long-term future of the company. It may be able to win a victory in the short term, but if that is the case it will be at the price of lasting damage to its future industrial relations with its employees. It will take a long time for the scars of this dispute to heal. That is why I feel bound to appeal to the company to change its attitude, and at least show a willingness to talk to APEX and to co-operate fully with ACAS in its inquiries.

It is a great pity that no member of the Opposition Front Bench has felt it necessary to make a similar appeal to the company to talk to APEX. I am sure that such an appeal would carry greater authority if it came from both sides of the House. I am forever being told that the Opposition have adopted a more conciliatory approach to industrial relations. Here is an ideal opportunity for them to demonstrate this new approach, if it is indeed their attitude.

I am sorry that I cannot do more to help my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington. I congratulate him for bringing this affair once more to the attention of the House and the public at large. I deeply regret that this damaging dispute has continued for so long. I am sure that but for the attitude of the company it would not have lasted so long, and I appeal to the employer to adopt a more sensible and conciliatory approach. Given good will on both sides, I feel sure that this dispute could be speedily resolved.