London Underground: Unofficial Strikes (Hansard, 2 May 1989)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara)
My Lords, I understand that the recent strikes on the London Underground were not organised by a union. There was therefore no statutory requirement to hold a ballot.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, does my noble friend's Answer mean that as long as a union aids and abets but does not organise a strike it can get away with it without a ballot?

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, there is no statutory requirement to hold a ballot before organising industrial action, but if a union wishes to protect itself from legal proceedings for inducing interference with contracts it must hold a proper ballot before doing so. It would not be practical to require the organisers of unofficial action to hold a ballot before taking such action. They do not have the same relationship with those being induced to strike as a trade union which induces its members.

§ Lord Underhill
My Lords, is there any evidence to justify the accusation made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that the union aided and abetted the two recent strikes? Is it not the case that the industrial action which may take place next week has been the subject of a proper ballot? Should our efforts not now be directed to ensuring that 2 negotiations which start today are successful and that there is no industrial action next week?

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, I certainly agree with the second part of the question of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, which concerns two different issues from the one which caused the unofficial action last week. I have no evidence that the union aided and abetted that unofficial action.

§ Lord Harmar-Nicholls
My Lords, is there not ample evidence that the union colluded with what one might call indolent passivity, and ought not that to be put to the test at some time?

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, I do not think that I can comment on that accusation. From the point of view of the law it was not an official strike and therefore the union was not involved.

§ Baroness Turner of Camden
My Lords, is it not a fact that the union made it quite clear that it was not supporting the strike and that it would ballot if it wanted strike action? Is it not also a fact that that ballot is now taking place?

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, I believe that that is correct. I understand that the ballot which has taken place concerns a different issue from the one-man operated trains issue which was the cause of the unofficial action referred to.

§ Lord Orr-Ewing
My Lords, can my noble friend say what is a proper ballot as referred to by the noble Lord on the Opposition Front Bench? Is this a proper ballot and is it supervised by the Registrar of Friendly Societies and the trade unions? Will we be told how many of those who were eligible to vote actually voted and what the outcome was? Otherwise it would be wrong to call it anything but a rigged ballot by certain extremists when perhaps the majority are not behind this holding to ransom of the travelling public who use London Underground.

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, I am not quite sure what the requirements are for a ballot. However, they are defined in law, and if the ballot does not 3 appear to come within the rules it is open to the employer to take action.

§ Baroness Seear
My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that these unsubstantiated implications of ill faith on the part of the official trade unions do nothing to ease the present difficult industrial relations position? Does the noble Lord recall that in the days before the Donovan Report nearly all strikes were unofficial, and does he agree that the highly legalistic approach of the Government towards industrial relations is not likely to work very effectively once labour power becomes stronger with the recovery in employment?

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, that question goes rather wide of the one on the Order Paper. Indeed, it is a very general question which would more properly be the subject of a debate rather than a Question to be answered at Question Time.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, arising from the questions from the Opposition Front Bench, can my noble friend say whether there is any evidence that the relevant trade union did anything to discourage the strike action which caused untold misery on two occasions to hundreds of thousands of people?

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, I cannot comment on that question. I understand that the unions opposed the unofficial actions. How strongly they did so and whether or not they were effective is another question.

Lord Paget of Northampton
My Lords, is not "untold misery" a bit much? Is this not simply a little case of silly legislation producing silly results?

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, considerable inconvenience was caused to the travelling public in London as a result of the two unofficial one-day strikes. It may well be that there was intimidation, and I am extremely disturbed by reports that threats of intimidation were used. If such threats were made, that may be a matter for the criminal law.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we on this side of the House deeply resent the blatant attempt by noble Lords opposite to discredit the union without any clear evidence whatsoever?

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, I find myself in the middle of this situation. I believe that I have heard the views of noble Lords on all sides of the House.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, will the noble Lord tell the House what he understands the dispute to be about?

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, the dispute to which my noble friend referred in his Question concerns the operation of one-person operated trains and the fact that certain of the drivers are claiming 50 per cent. of guards' current wages backdated to 4 October 1985. The issue should have been settled and, as I understood it, had been settled, but obviously it has not been settled so far as concerns everyone.

§ Lord Campbell of Alloway
My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that, if we are to have those trains running, the good will of the trade unions concerned is a most relevant factor and that anything said without evidence to the detriment of the activities of the trade unions in that regard could be counter-productive?

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. I believe that a meeting is taking place this afternoon. Obviously, we shall wait to see the result of that meeting.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, bearing in mind the increase in hooliganism and the possibility of violence on London's Underground, is this the right time to reduce the number of people in charge of the trains by almost 50 per cent.? The man who gives the signals is the only person to whom many people can refer and who can make decisions as to whether to proceed. He will no longer exist if the measure goes through.

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, this is not something new. One-man trains were introduced in 1984. What is in dispute is whether the drivers of those trains should receive an additional payment for operating without guards.

§ Lord Underhill
My Lords, is it not the case that if, before the negotiations started this morning, members of the unions concerned had heard some of the remarks that have been passed this afternoon behind the Minister, today's negotiations could have been imperilled? What we are concerned about is getting the negotiations settled so that we shall not have industrial action next week.

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, obviously, I cannot answer for what the unions might or might not have done if they had heard the remarks made in the House this afternoon.