UNREASONABLE EXCLUSION OR EXPULSION FROM TRADE UNION (Hansard, 22 April 1980)

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this we may discuss Government amendments Nos. 5 and 7.

§ Mr. Harold Walker
I should hate the House to be left with the impression that because we are not, at this hour, dividing the House we acquiesce in the retrograde changes in the Bill. We thought that the original provision was bad enough. The amendment makes it worse. A worker appealing against unfair dismissal by his employer has three months in which to make his application but a worker complaining against his trade union has twice as long. Because we are not dividing the House, it does not mean that we accept the proposition.

§ Mr. Leighton
I beg to move amendment No. 98, in page 5, leave out lines 12 to 15.
The lines which the amendment proposes to leave out read: 400 if under the rules of a trade union any person ceases to be a member of the union on the happening of an event specified in the rules, he shall be treated as having been expelled from the union. I wonder what "an event" is. It is difficult to envisage anything other than that a member should fall behind with his dues. Normally, if a member does that he is lapsed, not expelled. In my union, if a member does not pay his contributions for 13 weeks his membership is lapsed. Are we to assume that such a person will be regarded as if he has been expelled? That would be odd. The officials involved have no secretarial assistance. If a member does not pay his contributions after a given number of weeks a line is struck through his name and he is crossed off the list of members.
It is difficult to think of any other "event". Perhaps a member could resign. Would he be deemed to have been expelled? Each union has its rules. The officials and members are governed by the rules.
In another clause of the Bill there is provision for public funds to ballot members on rules and changes in rules. Would it not be ironic if, after having given public money to change or agree the rules, Parliament should then interfere and seek to override the rules?
We raised these matters in Committee and the Under-Secretary said: I am impressed by the arguments "— I do not know whether he is impressed by the arguments now— that have been put forward, and I think that there are difficulties which perhaps need further examination in regard to amendment No. 35. That amendment was similar to the one we are now discussing.
Later the Under-Secretary said: May I say, Mr. Goodhew, so that there be no misunderstanding, that I cannot give any commitment but I give a sincere undertaking to consider the arguments and review the drafting of the clause."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 19 February 1980; c.c. 498–99.] Having been given that commitment, we have examined the clause and found that there has been no redrafting. We would like to hear why there has been no redrafting by the Government.

§ Mr. Mayhew
The amendment deletes a provision in the Bill which deals with 401 the automatic cessation of union membership under circumstances specified in the union's rules—for example, the lapsing of membership for non-payment of dues.
The Bill specifies that in such a case the member shall be treated as having been expelled. But it is important to remember that the clause prefaces that with the words for the purposes of this section. One of the points that impressed me when it was made in Committee was that it was unfair that something that should have been perfectly innocent should give rise to an automatic expulsion. It is only for the purposes of this section that that is said by the Bill to occur. That is an important matter.
The effect of the amendment is such that a case such as that would not necessarily be treated as one of expulsion and is unlikely to be so treated where the rules provide for automatic lapsing of membership. This matter is technical and I am aware of the time. I will, therefore, deal with the matter as quickly as I can.
Different unions have differing rules as to how virtually the same event is to be regarded under the rules. For example, one union may provide for automatic lapsing of membership if subscriptions are a certain period in arrears, while another union's rules may provide that the member is liable in exactly the same circumstances to expulsion.
It would be anomalous if in the former case there was no jurisdiction for a tribunal to deal with an aggrieved person who thought that he had an explanation for his arrears and should not have been treated as no longer a member but that in the latter case he would complain of unreasonable expulsion. We are dealing with clause 3, which relates to a claim against the union for unreasonable expulsion.
It is possible, if the amendment were carried, that a union whose rules provided for automatic lapsing upon non-payment of dues could take advantage of a mistake of its own to effect the exclusion of a member whom those in charge aid not like without running the risk of a 402 complaint of unreasonable expulsion under the clause.
That could occur where, perhaps through a mistake in the check off, or a positive decision of the union not to accept subscriptions, specified arrears accrued. It may be possible for the union to treat someone whom it wanted expelled as having lapsed. Rules may be so worded that a tribunal would then be bound to hold that such a person had not been expelled and that the tribunal itself had no jurisdiction to hear the claim for compensation for unreasonable expulsion.
There is a risk that if, by deleting clause 3 (9)(b) it became clear that a member's membership could be terminated without expulsion, and without creating jurisdiction under this clause, the unions could amend their rules to expand the circumstances in which there was deemed to be automatic cessation of membership. That would defeat the object of the clause to which the Government attach considerable importance, because they see in it a means of substantially nullifying the sting of the closed shop. It must be remembered that, under the clause, such lapsing gives rise only to jurisdiction. The clause does not suggest that a union will have been unreasonable in the case of a former member who has deliberately refused to pay his union dues. It goes only to the question of jurisdiction.
It is with that in mind, and in particular having in mind the words that I have repeated from subsection (9)— For the purpose of this section "— that, on reflection—and we have given it very careful reflection—we believe that the clause should remain as drafted.

§ Mr. Leighton
I am sorry to hear what the Minister has said. He may have examples of which I have not heard, but I have not heard of a union, where a member has been willing to pay his union contributions, refusing to accept them and has sought to expel him. It seems a far-fetched example. There may be such cases. I do not know whether the Minister can instance some.