Unfair Dismissal (Non-strikers) (Hansard, 18 July 1984)

§ Mr. Peter Thurnham (Bolton, North-East)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that dismissal of an employee in consequence of that employee not taking part in a strike shall be unfair dismissal; and for connected purposes. This is the first ten-minute Bill that I have introduced. I had to make five visits to the Public Bill Office before I was first in the queue and thereby entitled to table the Bill. On one of these midnight occasions I met my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), and I am grateful to him for bringing the subject of my Bill to the attention of the House in part of his own recent ten-minute Bill.

The problem of unemployment that is caused by union pressures is the greatest issue facing Britain. Striking miners and dockers, in trying to protect their own jobs, are in turn threatening the livelihood of many millions of others who have to compete in world markets, and they will destroy their own jobs in the end.

The need for trade union reform has been recognised by this Parliament and the previous one but more needs to be done. I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) for drawing attention in his maiden speech to the area in which legislative support for the individual is most in need of reform. As he said, it is surprising that there is no protection for the worker who loses his job through refusing to strike.

Since May 1979 we have had Green Papers, codes of practice and two Acts of Parliament, with a third on the way. Despite all of them, there is still this one fundamental injustice which has not been effectively remedied. If a worker refuses to take part in a strike, he may be disciplined by his union and lose his union card. In a closed shop, that can mean the sack without a penny of compensation. At present, about 5 million workers are in closed shops.

Later this year, on 1 November, the Trade Union Act will require closed shops to be put to the test of a secret ballot. I believe that in most cases unions and employers will seek to avoid that requirement by attempting to continue the closed shop informally. In other cases—those where an 80 per cent. majority are in favour—the employer may agree to a ballot to continue the closed shop, with full powers to dismiss those who are not members of the union.

Thus, even after 1 November workers can still be in fear of dismissal without compensation if they work through a strike—afraid either because they are in a closed shop which has been confirmed by ballot or simply because they are uncertain of their rights in an informal, de facto, closed shop. That uncertainty arises because the legislation is complicated, and guidance to the employees is buried in paragraph 61 of the 24-page code of practice. Those employees can in many cases be frightened and afraid to assert their own rights. They are normal, quiet people who do not wish to risk a confrontation or publicity. They are reluctant to go to an industrial tribunal with no help from anyone.

As an example of the difficulties faced by an individual, consider the case of a print worker, John Seddon, of 353 Manchester, who has lost his job after 35 years with the Mirror Group because the union took away his card, and the union continues to oppose his return to work.

It is a matter of basic individual freedom for a worker to know without doubt that he cannot be sacked for refusing to strike, or that, if he is, he will be entitled to all the remedies for unfair dismissal provided by our laws. The right to work should be clearly stated in the union rule book and displayed on notice boards in all places where there is a de facto 100 per cent. union membership.

Closed shops have most force in public sector monopolies. Strikes in those industries are not limited by normal commercial considerations. If trade union officials cannot persuade their members to strike without threatening them with loss of their jobs, it is they who are the scabs of society.

Strikes in essential services hit the weakest members of society. Those individual trade unionists who are conscious of that, and do not wish to strike, should be given every protection by law, particularly if they are subject to intimidation, or threats, such as Arthur Scargill's, that non-union men will be frozen out of the industry.

Both my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), when he was Prime Minister, have said that everyone has the right to work. It is important that ordinary people should know their rights and not be afraid to go to work. The former Prime Minister said: everyone has the right to work and everyone has the right to cross a picket line."—[Official Report, 23 January 1979; Vol. 961, c. 198.] In my constituency, 210 nursery nurses who are required to be members of NALGO have been on strike since 1 May. Many of them do not wish to strike but, unfortunately, have been advised by their employer, Bolton council, to stay on strike rather than risk losing their jobs in the town hall's closed shop. That disgraceful advice is solely in the interests of the council's cosy union deals and is not in the interests of the children for whom the council is supposed to be caring—particularly the handicapped children, who should not be made to suffer in the dispute. Several of the nurses have been to see me to ask me for my help. Unless the Bill is made law, there is little that I can do to help them.

354 There have been other cases in the past that have come to my attention, again in Bolton. There was the case of councillor Kevan Hornby, who was employed as an ambulance driver during the "winter of discontent". He was victimised for attempting to work through that strike. He was physically assaulted, became disabled, lost his job, and was unable to secure employment until very recently.

It is to help such people that I am introducing the Bill, with the request to the Government that its provisions be included in future legislation which comes before Parliament, especially legislation relating to strikes and essential services. I trust that hon. Members will support me, and all those individuals who look to Parliament to protect their basic rights. I commend the Bill to the House.