Newspapers (Stockport) (Hansard, 8 November 1983)

§ Mr. Fergus Montgomery (Altrincham and Sale)
I should like at the beginning of this Adjournment debate to apologise to my hon. Friend the Minister of State because I think that he has had quite an exhausting day. I do not know how many speeches he has made already, but I am sorry that I have landed him with the burden of replying to his Adjournment debate.
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue because it allows me to highlight the way in which the National Graphical Association, in defiance of the law, is creating serious difficulties for a small firm in the north-west of England.
The Messenger group of newspapers originated in my constituency in 1974 as a free newspaper and employed at that time only four or five people. Because the paper was a success it expanded into other areas in the north-west. In the early days the newspapers were printed in Carlisle but in the period 1979–80 the Messenger group formed a subsidiary known as Fineward Ltd., based in Stockport. In January 1980 the newspaper was in negotiation with the National Graphical Association regarding representation by that association of Fineward employees. In February 1980 formal agreement was reached. Unfortunately, Fineward did not progress as expected and there were difficulties with the National Graphical Association. In fact, on 26 November 1981 the management wrote to the Stockport branch of the National Graphical Association stating its concern at the association's attitude, as a result of which the Messenger group decided not to expand its typesetting division at Fineward. In 1981 the Messenger group also expanded in the Bury area, and to service the Bury publication a subsidiary was formed, called Complete Artwork and Phototypesetting Services Ltd. or CAPS. That did for the Bury paper and for the increased production of the rest of the group what Fineward did at Stockport.
From this modest start in 1974, when there were only four or five employees, the Messenger group now employs about 120 people. A small firm, which started in that way and has built up the number of people it employs at a time of high unemployment should be encouraged.
The dispute with the National Graphical Association seems to stem from the opening of the operation at Bury. There were discussions with the west Pennine branch of the NGA and on 25 March 1982 the production manager at CAPS signed a brief document on NGA notepaper which was headed: Undertaking to be given by companies making application for interim recognition by the NGA. At the beginning of April 1982 the production manager wrote again to the branch secretary of the west Pennine division of the NGA advising that his company would not be going ahead with NGA recognition at Bury. The reason given was that he had been advised that whatever terms applied at Fineward would have to apply at Bury. Knowing the problems at Fineward the Messenger group was not prepared to risk similar problems at Bury.
The west Pennine branch was aware of the position because the secretary of the branch wrote a letter dated 23 August 1982 in which he referred to the production 276 manager of CAPS as having signed a recognition agreement. I am led to believe that that is untrue and that the only document signed was the undertaking to which I have already referred and which had been cancelled by the company at the beginning of April 1982. It should also be noted that the west Pennine branch of the NGA was all too well aware of the difficulties being experienced at Fineward.
The union's demand was that the Messenger group would have to agree to an arrangement whereby at least 50 per cent. of the existing employees became members of the NGA, that the group would recognise the NGA as the appropriate union to negotiate terms and conditions, that all future employees would have to become members of the NGA—in other words, a post-entry closed shop arrangement—and that all vacancies for staff would be notified to the appropriate NGA branch, which would put forward persons from its unemployed list to fill those vacancies. Only if it had no one on the unemployed list would the company be entitled to appoint other persons to work at Bury or Warrington and such persons would have to join the NGA on entering employment.
Those terms were considered by the Messenger group, which had a closed shop agreement at Fineward Ltd. and which had no objection to employees joining a trade union if they wished. The company decided to let its employees at Bury and Warrington decide whether to join a union, and at that time it gave the NGA the opportunity to put its case. In the event, the employees decided against joining the NGA.

§ Mr. Martin J. O'Neill (Clackmannan)
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has been greatly involved in the matter as the constituency hon. Member, but as one who is sponsored by the National Graphical Association I feel it only fair to point out that the association has a different view and is of the opinion that Mr. Shah embarked on this course of action with the aim of establishing non-union shops in the area. The association believes that Mr. Shah entered into agreements and then broke them; not only broke them, but sought to avoid any of the consequences of those breaks by refusing to participate in discussions and by refusing to accept any of the conciliation services of ACAS.
For the hon. Gentleman to attack the NGA in this way is to question the whole basis of industrial relations in the print industry in that part of north-west England, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) has been engaged in trying to find a solution to the problem. The kind of attack being made tonight on the NGA will not contribute to the early resolution of what is a difficult situation.

§ Mr. Montgomery
If the hon. Gentleman had waited until I had completed my remarks—and I have some harsh remarks to make about the NGA because I believe that what it is doing is illegal—he would have heard me deal with that. If the NGA is anxious to find a solution to this dispute, it must stop the intimidation, which is going on outside the offices of the Messenger group.
Further meetings between the company and the union took place, but to no avail. On 4 July, 1983 the NGA notified its members at Fineward of the dispute and told them to withdraw their labour. After six weeks, the NGA realised that the dispute was not having the effect that it had hoped. The newspapers were still being published, 277 circulated and read by the people in the areas they covered, and at that time the NGA called on members of the National Union of Journalists employed by the Messenger group to refuse to submit copy to editorial staff. That resulted in the company issuing proceedings against the NUJ, and it obtained an injunction against the NUJ on the basis that the inducement to break contracts was illegal. Nine NUJ members have refused to cross NGA picket lines, but 14 other journalists employed by the company have joined another union. It is worth stressing—and this proves the point against the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) about anti-trade unionism—that until the NGA-NUJ disruptive action, the Messenger group was one of the few weekly newspaper operations that had a closed shop agreement with the NUJ.
The present situation is causing great distress to employees of the Messenger group, who are having to cross picket lines to get to work. I there fore hope that the Minister will be able to give some indication of how ACAS can resolve the dispute.

§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Demon and Reddish)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Montgomery
I am sorry, but no. The hon. Gentleman came to me before the debate and asked if I would allow him to intervene. He knows the rules and that I am on a tight schedule.
I hope that when he replies to the debate the Minister will give an indication of how ACAS can resolve the dispute. The Messenger group has always recognised—

§ Mr. Bennett
May I tell the hon. Gentleman—

§ Mr. Montgomery
No, I will not give way. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not continue to rise and so take time out of the debate.
The Messenger group has always recognised a trade union when its employees have wanted that. I cite as evidence of that the case of Fineward and the NGA, and the closed shop agreement with the NUJ, to which I have referred. In a democracy individuals have rights also. In the Messenger group a large number of employees have shown that they do not wish to join the NGA. Surely that is their right, and one which should be upheld by the company.
The union clearly sees this dispute as an opportunity to challenge the law of the land and to turn the fight against one small firm into a battle against the Government's trade union legislation. The circular of the Society of Graphical and Allied Trades dated October 1983 states: Re-Messenger group newspaper Following the successful meeting which was held at the New Century Hall on Thursday, 27th October 1983, it has been agreed that the joint Manchester Branches of SOGAT 82 will hold a mass meeting outside the premises of the Messenger Group Newspapers, at 10.00 a.m. on THURSDAY, 10TH NOVEMBER 1983. The address of the Messenger Group Newspaper is". The newsletter of the Manchester branch of the National Union of Journalists of November 1983 is headed: Picket plan will defy Tebbit law at Stockport". The article stated: The recognition dispute at the Stockport Messenger, which has already lead to the NUJ being judged in contempt of court, is poised to become the focus on an all-out attack on the Government's anti-trade union legislation. The article further stated: A programme of action will begin on November 1st, with a mass picket of the Fineward offices, Wellington Street, Stockport, starting at 7 a.m. This will be followed by pickets at Bury and Warrington on November 2nd.

§ Mr. Alistair Burt (Bury, North)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, as we earlier agreed. My constituents are now faced by the picket line, after having taken part in a ballot in which they unanimously rejected the closed shop. I have seen this at close hand., having spoken yesterday to an employee, and I know that the employees do not regard that as the best way for the union to go about making friends and influencing people.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong)
The hon. Member may not make a speech. He is just intervening during a speech, as I understand it.

§ Mr. Burt
I make just this point. It is extraordinary that today we face a dispute in these terms, bearing in mind that legislation has been passed, but principally that the employees had taken part in a ballot and had decided unanimously to reject a closed shop. Yet we still find the National Graphical Association taking this action.
It is clear from the fact of the employer's granting permission to conduct the ballot that there was no intention to go for an anti-union shop. I speak on behalf of my constituents. I want to see this dispute settled reasonably. The political overtones being introduced by the National Graphical Association are not contributing to an improvement of the position.

§ Mr. Montgomery
I thank my hon. Friend because what he said is true. The unions have organised illegal pickets at Bury, Stockport and Altrincham, where the Messenger group has offices. The law maintains that it is right for a reasonable number of employees who are members of the NGA—they total six—to picket at Fineward, but I believe that it is illegal for the NGA to subject the staff and potential customers of the Messenger group to excess harassment and the abuse that has been hurled at them by people purporting to represent the NGA. It is worth mentioning that all Messenger group employees, whether or not they are NGA members, have always enjoyed terms and conditions that are certainly not less favourable, and in many respects are superior, to those negotiated nationally by the print unions. That is the case, even if no notice is taken of the profit-sharing scheme that is operated by the Messenger group.
It is worrying that the NGA, in its official journal of November 1983, makes it clear that it intends to defy the orders of the court in this dispute with the Messenger group. It appears that this small newspaper group is being made a pawn in the aims of the print unions to challenge the law of the land and to re-establish their dominance of the print industry and its employees. The tactics employed by the Messenger group seem to show the NGA's anxieties about what could happen if employees are allowed to make their own choice about union membership. The Messenger group employees in Bury and Warrington have made it abundantly clear that they do not want to join the NGA. The NGA is not prepared to accept that decision. It would seem that the NGA would rather see its members and other union members kept out of work, in breach of their contracts of employment than face the prospect of a comparatively small company, in the context of total union membership, successfully producing newspapers. My hon. Friend the Minister of State and I were in Parliament when the Conservative Government legislated in 1980 and 1982 to give employees the democratic freedom that the Messenger group is anxious to afford to its employees. The NGA seems anxious to deny that right to any worker in the 279 print industry. The NGA contends that the Messenger group had an agreement with the association and suggest that it had broken that agreement. That was the point made by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). The only agreement that the Messenger group had with the NGA was at Fineward, and the NGA chose to break that agreement.

§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Montgomery
I shall not give way. At no time did the Messenger group have an agreement with the NGA, apart from the week commencing 25 March 1982, when there existed an undertaking given on behalf of CAPS when applying for interim recognition by the NGA. As the NGA was clearly aware, further discussions on recognition by CAPS were aborted by the letter written at the beginning of April 1982.
So we come to the present position. Yesterday there were 50 pickets outside the Stockport office. Today, Wednesday, the company expects a mass picket by NGA branch officers from all over the country; and on Thursday there will be a mass meeting organised by SOGAT outside the Stockport office. Perhaps my hon. Friend will tell me about the prospects of a meeting with ACAS. I do not believe for a moment that the Messenger group will negotiate under duress. If the unions would withdraw the mass pickets and stop the harassment of employees and customers the way would be clear for the two sides in the dispute to meet ACAS. I hope that my hon. Friend can give me some reassurance about that when he replies.

§ The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer)
I listened with great interest to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Montgomery), and I share his concern about the dispute. My background is in the industry, and what saddens me is that his story is one which anyone with experience of the industry must take seriously. There is no doubt that methods have been used and tactics employed in the printing industry which would not stand much investigation and would not run well if taken in the context of some of the speeches that we heard from Opposition Members this evening. Several aspects of the industrial action taken in the dispute have been the subject of legal proceedings, some of which may ultimately lead to enforcement in the courts. A case concerning damages is also pending, and the House will understand if I do not comment on the detailed legal arguments involved in those proceedings.
Nevertheless, it is reasonable to examine what is at the root of the dispute. Let me say straight away what the dispute is not about. It is not about the willingness of the employer to allow employees to become and remain members of a trade union. My hon. Friend said that people working for this employer have been members of trade unions and continue to be so. The employers have made it clear that they have no objection to individual employees taking up union membership. Indeed, it would be strange if they did, since many employees were already in the union when the dispute began.
Nor is this a dispute about trade union recognition, despite the fact that the NGA has repeatedly used the term 280 "recognition agreement" to describe the sort of agreement that it wishes to achieve. A recognition agreement is an arrangement between an employer and one or more unions that they will be recognised for the purposes of the negotiation of terms and conditions of employment for certain employees. But, except in the curious language used by the NGA, it is totally different from a closed shop agreement, under which all employees are required to belong to the union. I use the words "curious language" because that is what lies at the heart of the dispute. When the NGA speaks of a normal recognition agreement, it means a closed shop agreement. It does not mean what anyone else means by a recognition agreement. A recognition agreement is an important concept in industry—one which I wholly support and was fully in favour of in the industry in which I worked.
Therefore, the NGA must use the word that everyone else uses. It appears to be attempting to force a closed shop agreement on certain companies in the Messenger group under threats of industrial action and blacking, although the people working in those companies do not wish to have a closed shop agreement. If that is true, that is most worrying. It means that a union would use its power to make people join it when they do not want to. That is a difficult concept in a democracy.

§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
Will the Minister give way?

§ Mr. Gummer
The hon. Gentleman has not had the courtesy to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Montgomery) for time to intervene.

§ Mr. Bennett
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely it is customary in the House for us to debate issues and, if points are raised in the debate, for hon. Members to respond to them. We do not have to anticipate those points, particularly if they arise in the Minister's speech. I accept that it is necessary to inform the hon. Member who has the Adjournment that one wishes to speak, but one should be able to intervene.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
That is not a point of order. The hon. Gentleman knows that Adjournment debates are peculiar to the hon. Member who is fortunate enough to win the ballot.

§ Mr. Gummer
This is not a case of an employer resisting the demands of his own employees for a closed shop agreement.

§ Mr. Bennett
Will the Minister give way?

§ Mr. Gummer
I shall not give way. I have many answers to give my hon. Friend who raised the matter.

§ Mr. Bennett
Stick to the facts.

§ Mr. Gummer
I am sticking carefully to the facts.

§ Mr. Bennett
Anti-union people.

§ Mr. Gummer
This is not a case of an employer resisting the demands of his own employees for a closed shop agreement. The Government do not like closed shops, but they do not set out to abolish them. If employees in large enough numbers want to have a closed shop, that is, and will continue to be, legal. During the dispute a secret ballot has been held of the employees concerned.

§ Mr. O'Neill
Will the Minister give way?

§ Mr. Gummer
I shall not give way as I have a great deal to say in a few minutes. 281 During the dispute a secret ballot has been held of the employees concerned. The result, as I understand it, was a unanimous vote against the introduction of a closed shop into the companies in the Messenger group where a closed shop is not already in force.
The NGA chose to ignore that clear demonstration of the employees' wishes and, thwarted in its aims, it unleashed a panoply of actions, including blacking, secondary picketing and so-called "sympathetic action", designed to force the employers to submit to the union's will. If ever there was a case of the unacceptable face of trade unionism, this appears to be it. The NGA must explain itself much more effectively than it has up to now.
The Government object to the closed shop in principle. We believe fundamentally that it is the right of every employee to join a trade union if he wishes. We have substantially strengthened that right in our Employment Act 1982. I believe strongly that a man has every right to join a trade union. No one should stop him. However, he should not be forced to join a trade union. The law is clear on that matter. We have given strong powers against the denial of jobs on the grounds of membership of a trade union.

§ Mr. O'Neill
That is what happened in Carlisle.

§ Mr. Gummer
We are not talking about Carlisle. We are talking about the Messenger group in my hon. Friend's constituency.
We also believe fundamentally that it should be the right of every employee not to join a trade union if he decides not to do so. That is why, while recognising the impracticability of outlawing the closed shop entirely, we have provided major safeguards in the Employment Act 1980 and the Employment Act 1982 for those who are forced to work under closed shop arrangements.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale knows. we especially deplore attempts to enforce the closed shop by the back door through threats of blacking and other industrial action against employers who refuse to impose closed-shop working on their employees. I also deeply deplore any employer deciding that he will not employ somebody because of that person's trade union membership.[Interruption.] That, too, is deplorable, but Labour Members must face the facts of this particular dispute and I very much hope that they will do so.
We therefore took action in the 1982 Act to deal with trade union action against non-union or non-closed-shop firms. As a result of the Act, a trade union which organises or threatens industrial action such as blacking by the employees of one employer will certainty have no legal immunity and hence may face legal proceedings if the action is taken because employees of another employer are not union members or because that other employer does not recognise a trade union. That provision is in addition to the other provisions in the 1982 Act which effectively remove a trade union's immunity when there is no dispute between an employer and his own work force in the first place.

§ Mr. O'Neill
Will the Minister give way?

§ Mr. Gummer
It would be unfair to the hon. Member who raised the matter if I gave way.
Moreover, the 1982 Act removes immunity from a trade union which organises or threatens industrial action to induce an employer to enforce union-labour-only 282 requirements on contractors. It thus makes generally unlawful, for example, action taken to force an employer not to enter into a contract or to terminate an existing contract with another company on the grounds that the other company employs non-union labour.
My hon. Friend the Member for Atrincham and Sale asked what will be done about this particular case. It is suggested that because the unlawful industrial action is apparently still taking place the legislation is not proving effective, but I must point out that it is for the employers to decide when it is right to embark on enforcement proceedings. It is for the employers in this case to make up their minds. So far, they have stayed their hands in a number of these areas.
I hope very much that ACAS will be able to find a way through this. ACAS has been involved since the outset. It managed to organise a joint meeting between the union and the employers on 26 August, but regrettably that meeting did not bear fruit. I understand, however, that ACAS has now made arrangements for meetings to take place on Thursday 17 November.

§ Mr. O'Neill
The management is refusing to attend.

§ Mr. Gummer
I must therefore agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend's condemnation of the patently unlawful picketing organised by the unions involved.

§ Mr. O'Neill
That is irrelevant.

§ Mr. Gummer
If the hon. Gentleman thinks it irrelevant to a meeting that large numbers of pickets are outside the works he does not understand what the meeting is supposed to be about. Surely it would be far more sensibly held not under duress.
I mention two points about the law on picketing under our legislation. First, although it is for the police to deal with violent or unruly picketing under the criminal law, the recommended limit of six pickets per entrance in the picketing code of practice will be taken into account by the civil courts in deciding whether the purpose goes beyond peaceful persuasion and into, say, intimidation or obstruction.
Secondly, where picketing does not comply with the provisions of the 1980 Act—for example, if it is away from the pickets' place of work or goes beyond peaceful persuasion—immunity is removed from the organisers if the pickets interfere with contracts, including commercial contracts.
Furthermore, the general position is that if a union has organised picketing in contravention of an earlier court order, the employer may complain to the court. If the court upholds the complaint, it may impose penalties on the union for contempt of court.
All this is not as it should be, however, because the court should not have to be brought into the matter. As at least one Labour Member seems to have close connections with the NGA, I should say this. I am sure that the Opposition will agree that the best way to find the answer to this problem—

§ Mr. O'Neill
rose—

§ Mr. Gummer
—is by getting the employers and the employees to decide what they wish to do and for the union to have discussions with the employers. I understand that the employers are willing to do this and that a meeting has been fixed for next Thursday. I am sure that it would help 283 that meeting a great deal if the employer did not feel that the presence of a large number of pickets constitued harassment—