EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION ACT (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) (Hansard, 20 October 1976)

§ Mr. Stan Thorne (Preston, South)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Employment Protection Act 1975 with reference to the certification of trade unions; and for connected purposes. I should like to make the point that this Bill is not the same, nor can it even be considered the same, as that introduced on 13th July, for obvious reasons. The Employment Protection Act, as hon. Members will recall, was introduced in an attempt to improve industrial relations. It is relevant to consider what has been done by the Certification Officer over the past months, following his appointment.

As at 10th September 1976, 168 certificates had been issued, of which 47 had no links with the Trade Union Congress or a TUC affiliate. Only seven applications had been refused. One of those applicants has subsequently reapplied and been awarded a certificate, and another is appealing under the Employment Appeals Tribunal procedure. At this date a further 52 applications from non-TUC affiliates are pending.

There has been a mushrooming of staff associations since the appointment of the Certification Officer. In aerospace alone there are now 16 separate staff associations, and in the finance sector of Britain 35 separate staff associations are listed as trade unions.

The basic problem is that the definition of "independent" under Section 30 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act is defective. Arising from those defects, which time does not permit me to spell out in detail, the Certification Officer has made decisions which could only be described as eccentric I propose to site three such examples.

Courtaulds Group 1 Staff Association has a total yearly income of £2,800. It pays no rent for offices, which were at Courtaulds but in the past year have been transferred to the house of one of its members. Only E1,000 was spent last year. Of that, £800 went to a part-time consultant—a university lecturer—in the form of a retainer and expenses. Postage, duplicating and telephone bills are met 1468 by using company facilities, as is all secretarial and clerical assistance. Subscriptions are a mere 30p a month, while the average subscription for trade unions affiliated to the TUC is about £1 a month.

This staff association has a certificate because at present it does virtually nothing and therefore saves over half of its income. It is thus independent because it is ineffective—a situation that must be of delight to the employer. The granting of a certificate runs counter to the code of industrial relations practice, which states that Two main themes underline the code. (i) The vital role of collective bargaining carried out… between employers and strong, representative trade unions. How on earth the Courtaulds Group Staff Association came within that category beggars description.

The second example is the Association of Cambridge University Assistants. In 1974 it had a membership of 1,029 and a total income of £2,640. Its office is owned by Corpus Christi college and the rent is £80 a year. The telephone bill was only £52 and the total bill for stationery, postage and telephones for the whole of 1975 was £226. That could have paid for postage stamps on only four second-class letters to each member in the whole year. There could have been no envelopes or paper, yet the rules lay down stringent obligations about written communications to the membership. The figure is therefore implausible.

The rules also include the provision of a monthly news-sheet. How that could be done without the university heavily and clandestinely subsidising the associaions is a complete mystery.

The rules also state that the association shall employ its own officials. It has one such official, whose remuneration is about £16 a week. This not only shows that the definition is defective; it raises doubts whether in this case a serious investigation was carried out, especially in view of the industrial relations consequences.

The third example is that of the Imperial Supervisors' Association, connected with the Imperial Tobacco Company. The office of that association is the home of an official and there are no rent charges. There are no paid officials and no charges for the AGM, which is open to 450 members. The total income is about £2,800 and the total spent on 1469 stationery, printing, postage and telephones is £2.

It is not the responsibility of management to give practical assistance in the circumstances that we are discussing when the certification officer has certified an organisation as an independent trade union, yet Clause 7(ii) of the rule book of this independent trade union contains the words: It is the responsibility of management to give practical assistance and advice to supervisors' representatives to enable them to equip themselves to play a full and effective part in the work of the joint negotiating machinery. I submit that in such circumstances it is incredible to conceive of such an organisation being certified as an independent trade union.

In a statement to the House the Secretary of State for Industry said: The existing provisions result in certificates being granted in circumstances where there is a risk of their being used to upset stable collective bargaining arrangements and to create damaging inter-union disputes."—[Official Report, 29th July 1976; Vol. 916, c. 985.] When we have established, as I am sure we will, the new British Aerospace Board, those circumstances to which the Secretary of State referred will be created in that new industry by certifying additional staff associations.

In Preston a problem has already arisen between the National Union of Journalists and the Institute of Journalists. The local paper is in dispute with the management and that dispute has been affected by the breakdown of relationships on the Lancashire Evening Post. On that basis and against that background I urge the House to give me leave to bring in the Bill.

§ Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport)

I wish to oppose the Bill, because it will be most damaging. Although the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) has set out the principles contained in the Bill he has told us little about the details. He has criticised the legislation of his own Government—in power for only nine months—without saying what he proposes to do.

The Employment Protection Act effectively came into force on 1st February 1976, when the certification officer assumed his duty. The rules by which the 1470 certification officer must operate are clearly laid down in the Act. His duty is to Determine whether the applicant trade union is independent and he grants a certificate if he is satisfied. The test of independence may not be simple and involves a number of points. The test is nevertheless clear and should be non-controversial. Section 30 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 narrowly defines an "independent trade union". The current legislation was extensively debated in both Houses and the view was frequently expressed from all sides that the certification officer should be independent and impartial.

It is not surprising that the hon. Member for Preston, South should seek to change the Act. He is reflecting the minority view that was expressed during the passing of the Employment Protection Act itself and which was debated during discussions on the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill. On previous occasions Lord Briginshaw and the hon. Gentleman have both sought to amend the Act, and this Bill appears to be a similar attempt.

Until recently Labour Ministers have taken a firm and clear view on the issue. The Minister of State, Department of Industry—the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman)—clearly explained in Committee that the purpose of the present legislation is to set up the rights and privileges available to organisations which can satisfy tests of independence and suitability for recognition and that all organisations for representing employees should have an equal chance of meeting those criteria. Many people do not agree with the details of the legislation, but the overwhelming majority of workers and others throughout the country will accept that the principles of fairness and equality should be applied. The test in Section 8 subsection (5) of the Act is objective and impartial.

The name of the organisation obviously does not matter, and some important unions are called staff associations or staff federations. I remind the hon. Gentleman of the Inland Revenue Staff Federation and the Transport and Salaried Staffs Association. Political affiliation does not matter, either. The hon. Gentleman said that 168 unions 1471 have been given certificates, but in fact the figure is 180, 59 of which have no stated political affiliation.

It does not matter whether there is one employer or many. The Union of Post Office Workers, the National Union of Railwaymen and the National Union of Mineworkers are all one-employer unions. Any union which can satisfy the criteria of independence is eligible.

The rules have been laid down by Parliament, but it is the certification officer who must decide whether a trade union can be certified as independent. He has a degree of discretion—a matter that was widely discussed by hon. Members in all parts of the House. The exercise of his discretion is an important part of the function of the officer in question, but it is the impartial exercise of discretion that seems to upset the hon. Gentleman. It is clear from his comments that he does not trust any union unless it shares his own attitudes and views, but it has not been easy for him or his hon. Friends to prepare a form of words that bans the unions that he does not like. Hence the crafty drafting and dodgy logic of anyone who seeks to change the Employment Protection Act.

It cannot be logical by any test to say that affiliation with the TUC makes a union independent. The question is: independent of what? True independence need not rely upon affiliation with any other group.

I can understand the hon. Gentleman's concern that a union is less likely to be independent if the employer is closely involved with it, but this is 1976, and past affiliations do not matter. Moreover, what is the point of the recommendations by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service that employers should provide facilities for unions and union members? That is a proposal that employers and unions should seek to work together. The hon. Gentleman seems to be legislating for confrontation. The fact that an employer is giving facilities to a union should be welcomed by him and not regarded as a hostile act.

The next point made by the hon. Gentleman is the most remarkable of all. He said that where employees are coerced or encouraged by an employer 1472 to join a union the union might be deemed not to be independent. Did not he have the opportunity yesterday to meet a large number of British Airways staff who came to the House of Commons? They said that the 16 unions representing British Airways staff were seeking to impose a closed shop. That means that in future all employees who join British Airways will have to be members of a union. That is the imposition of a closed shop. That imposition will have the effect that British Airways will cause future employees to be members of the union. That is nothing less than coercion by the employer. That test of independence does not stand up.

The other argument put forward by the hon. Gentleman that there should be a test as to the amount of money spent by the union seems not to require further comment.

It seems that the Government's own legislation may have backfired, because it sets up a certification procedure which itself has a degree of independence. The certification officer is independent of political and factional pressure and, as an independent agent, has certified some unions which are not affiliated to the TUC. Good luck to him. There are further applications in the pipeline—good luck to them, too.

The principle attacked in the Bill is the principle of independence. Where a trade union is fairly and properly certified as independent, it should have the benefits offered by the Employment Protection Act. The hon. Gentleman and the country should know that "independent" means independent, and that includes independence from the TUC if the members of the unions so choose.

The Bill threatens freedom of choice by unions and union members. As such, it attacks democracy itself. That is why the Bill should be opposed before it disappears into the Parliamentary void.