HL Deb 05 July 1990 vol 520 cc2257-9

Baroness Turner of Camden asked Her Majesty's Government:

What steps they intend to take to ensure that employers comply with the Government's view that the right to belong to a union must be protected, as well as the right not to belong.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Strathclyde)

My Lords, the law provides that an employee shall be regarded as having been unfairly dismissed if the reason for the dismissal was that he was, or was not, a member of a trade union. An employee who believes he has been dismissed for such a reason can present a complaint to an industrial tribunal. The Government firmly believe that all individuals should have the freedom to decide for themselves whether or not they wish to belong to a trade union.

Baroness Turner of Camden

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, is he aware that it is quite possible for an employer to provoke a dispute by unilaterally changing terms and conditions of employment, and then when a dispute arises he can dismiss all the employees and take on non-union labour? What kind of protection do union members have in such situations? Is the Minister aware that this happens occasionally and has happened recently, according to my information, at a firm called Chloride in Southampton? What protection do employees have in those circumstances?

Lord Strathclyde

My Lords, I cannot comment on any particular case. However, if an employer changes an employee's terms and conditions against the will of the latter, it is open to the employee to sue through the courts for breach of contract. Alternatively, if the employee considers that the contract of employment has been repudiated, he may resign and make a complaint of constructive unfair dismissal to an industrial tribunal.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, would it not be wiser to defer debating this subject until next Tuesday when it will arise in Clause 1 of the Employment Bill, which incidentally the noble Baroness is seeking to strike out?

Lord Strathclyde

My Lords, we shall enjoy a far fuller debate on Tuesday.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes

My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that there is now special provision for the kind of case which has been referred to and that the industrial tribunals provide an interim hearing, and an interim reinstatement if appropriate, at a much earlier stage than is the case with any other form of industrial tribunal hearings? I know that is so because I sat on a case where just such a judgment was reached only about two weeks ago.

Lord Strathclyde

My Lords, the whole House is enriched by the experiences of my noble friend in this matter.

Lord Mellish

My Lords, I hope to speak next Tuesday on the Employment Bill. Will the Minister give me an assurance that the Government's attitude will be that if a man wishes to join a trade union he will be allowed to do so?

Lord Strathclyde

Of course, my Lords.

Lord Rochester

My Lords, the position is no doubt as the Minister has stated, but do not actions of employers such as those the noble Baroness has mentioned make a mockery of the first sentence in the Employment Bill that we are to discuss next week; namely, that it is unlawful to refuse employment to a person who is or is not a member of a trade union'?

Lord Strathclyde

My Lords, I must remind the noble Lord that under existing legislation that was enacted by the previous Labour Government an employer is allowed to dismiss all those who have breached their contracts of employment through taking industrial action. Such an employer does not have to face claims of unfair dismissal from those who have been dismissed through taking such action. We are improving the situation under the terms of the new Bill.

Lord Mason of Barnsley

My Lords, what is the Government's view on the protection that should be afforded to a worker who is being denied membership of a trade union by his employer'?

Lord Strathclyde

My Lords, that is precisely the kind of issue that we shall be able to discuss next week.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, would it not be possible, in the view of the House, to pass to the next Question as we shall have certainly one day's and possibly two days' debate on all these questions? They cannot be dealt with on the basis of question and answer.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, is this not a new doctrine that is being introduced —that because something is to be discussed next week noble Lords should not be able to ask questions about it? Are our debates not based on the fact that questions should be asked about legislation so that a more reasoned and proper debate can take place?

Lord Strathclyde

My Lords, I am more than happy to reply to questions from noble Lords in this House on any subject, but it is normally the case that questions constitute requests for information. I try to supply that information as ably as I can.

Baroness Turner of Camden

My Lords, I thank the Minister for all the responses he has given. However, will he say, without attempting to pre-empt the debate that will take place next week, whether the Government have considered issuing guidance to employers on these issues?

Lord Strathclyde

No, my Lords. That is, after all, a matter to be decided between employers and employees.

Back to