COLLECTIVE BARGAINING (Hansard, 29 March 2004)

§ John McDonnell
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
With this we may take the following amendments: No. 8, in page 9, line 3, leave out Clause 8.
No. 9, in page 49, line 10 [Schedule 2], after 'paragraphs', insert '7'.

§ John McDonnell
The new clause and associated amendments deal with a problem that has arisen in several disputes, which I would like briefly to outline. It first occurred in a dispute leading to the case of OILCv. Wood Group Engineering (North Sea) Ltd. in August 2003. Despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of the core workers on the Brent oil platforms were OILC 1357 members and wanted the union to negotiate with their employer, Wood Group Engineering (North Sea) Ltd. on their behalf, the application was refused on the ground that the employer set the workers' terms and conditions by reference to a collective agreement between the Offshore Contractors Association and the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union and the GMB. That was held to debar the OILC from seeking recognition.
The same problem occurred in the case of NUJv. Mirror Group Newspapers plc, where a claim for recognition by the National Union of Journalists at theRacing Post was rejected by the Central Arbitration Committee. As in the previous case, the NUJ was about to finalise a deal with the employer, who decided instead to make a recognition deal with the British Association of Journalists—a tiny union that at the time had not a single member at theRacing Post. It claimed to have one, whose name it had forgotten, at the time of the CAC hearing some months later, despite the employer circulating letters from the BAJ begging journalists to join and offering free subscriptions. At the time of the hearing, the BAJ had not carried out any collective bargaining on behalf of the workers in that firm, who shunned the BAJ. In the view of many, that was a breach of article 11 of the European convention on human rights, which allows workers the right to be heard via their trade union. The new clause would ensure that a trade union that has a majority of a work force as members is not frustrated by an employer rushing into agreement with another organisation, which may have no membership or a minuscule membership in that firm, in advance of a CAC hearing and decision.
As the law stands, it grants representation to the first corner, not to the most representative organisation. The amendment would put the Government's legislation in line with international law, but at the same time would accept the democratic wishes of the majority of the individuals working for a particular company who could demand to be represented by the union of their choice.

§ Mr. Djanogly
On a technical point, I do not believe that there is a paragraph 7 or 35 to schedule A1 to the 1992 Act—perhaps the hon. Gentleman was referring to the Employment Relations Act 1999; he may wish to clarify that point. At present, the recognition process applies only when a company has at least 21 workers and the new clause would open up union recognition in any company, however few workers it had. That would be an utter disaster for most small businesses, and for the competitive state of our economy.
In any event, the statistics do not show union recognition in small companies to be a relevant consideration. The Minister told us in Committee that only 12 applications for statutory recognition came from companies with 21 to 30 employees—less than 5 per cent. of the whole. Barely 10 per cent. of applications came from companies with between 31 and 50 employees. Companies do not appear interested in union recognition with that number of employees, and neither do the employees. Unions might not be 1358 interested in becoming involved at that level, probably because of the cost implications with so few members. For companies with fewer than 50 employees, none of the parties appears interested in recognition and to that extent, instead of the figure of 21 being struck out of the legislation, it should be raised to 50.

§ Mr. Tynan
In a way, I support the proposition that has been put before us. Everyone is nasty about trade unions, and, at present, if companies have fewer than 21 employees they are excluded from trade union recognition. However, if Opposition Members recognised the value that trade unions can bring to a company, they would better understand industrial relations in this country. We start from different points of view. It is thought that unions are bad if they are involved in a small, family company, because that is not the way business should be done.
In my former life as a trade union official, I often found that small companies recognised the worth of trade unions and negotiated with them, on not an official but an ad hoc basis. They had no objection to their employees being members of a trade union. If we exclude companies where there are fewer than 21 workers, we do a disservice to those who want union recognition. Union recognition is not bad—it can be a good thing.

§ Mr. Djanogly
No one is saying that people should not be members of a trade union—that is their right; we are talking about recognition.

§ Mr. Tynan
That is where we differ from Opposition Members. If 20 people in a company want to join a trade union and we are agreed that they have that right, I can see nothing wrong in the employer recognising those 20 people as a bargaining unit. Perhaps we should consider extending bargaining rights where there are fewer than 21 people in a business, although I realise that is not on the agenda tonight.
There has been considerable discussion with the TUC and employers, but we need to send the message that in future we shall continue to look at the needs of workers in companies. There are some very bad small employers and a trade union is needed to defend their workers, who are treated very badly. I hope that Opposition Members do not condone bad employers who treat their workers badly.

§ Mr. David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
Rather than looking at the negatives, does my hon. Friend agree that we should look at the positives? For example, the Government's policies on stakeholder pensions could offer trade unions in small companies a valuable way to organise the work force to help employers understand why pensionability is vital for their workers.

§ Mr. Tynan
I do not disagree with my hon. Friend.
In Committee, we discussed a range of issues relating to trade union membership and how we would deal with them. We accepted that the Bill is a good one. Yes, there is room for amendment, and we should be signalling to the Minister that we may have to revisit some aspects in the future. I support the new clause, but I hope that it is withdrawn, because I understand the points that have 1359 been made. The Minister should take careful note of what has been proposed, however; perhaps we can move in that direction in the future.
Malcolm Bruce: When the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) introduced the new clause, he gave two examples. The second seemed to be a blatant illustration of the abuse that the provision would address, but I was rather puzzled by his first example, which sounded more like an inter-union dispute; indeed, the North sea problems rose from it. Operational working is such that contractors move on and off platforms. I am not arguing for or against the Wood offshore case, but the company presumably argued that it already had an established agreement with a trade union and was on the platform for the duration of a particular contract, but that theOILC was trying to get in on the act. That may not have been so, but that is how it sounded.

§ John McDonnell
No one was aware that the union agreement actually existed.

§ Malcolm Bruce
Presumably, the management were aware of it. The point is that there are particular problems for the organisation of North sea workers.
The hon. Gentleman's second example was central, however. It is important that the Minister acknowledge the fact that there was a wholly self-interested attempt to destroy the legitimate aspiration of the work force to have the union they wanted. We must address the fact that managements could undermine not only the spirit of unionism but the fundamental principle that people have the right to belong to the union of their choice.
9 pm

§ Mr. Sutcliffe
In view of the time, I shall race through my response, although that is not to underplay the seriousness of the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has raised.
Let me say to the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) that the Government do not oppose recognition in companies with fewer than 21 workers. The argument is whether there should be statutory procedures in respect of such companies, and the evidence given to the hon. Gentleman exposes the position in that respect. However, I am sure that we shall return to the matter, in connection with rights to have a companion during dispute resolution procedures and so on.
The hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) spoke about offshore oil rigs and he is right to say that we should not be drawn into inter-union disputes. The case is—or used to be—governed by the TUC's Bridlington principles and is a matter for the TUC.
As for the case involving the NUJ and Mirror Group Newspapers, my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington will know that judicial review is likely, so I cannot say anything at this stage. However, I acknowledge the issues that have been raised.
On collective agreements, we in the UK have a culture of voluntary procedures that does not exist elsewhere. There are matters to examine—for example, sweetheart 1360 deals with employers—but I hope that, having put the issues on the record, my hon. Friend will withdraw his new clause.

§ John McDonnell
I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.