§
17 Clause 15, page 8, line 20, at end insert—
("(4) The payment of higher wages or higher rates of pay or overtime or the payment of any signing on or other bonuses or the provision of other benefits having a monetary value to other workers employed by the same employer shall not constitute a detriment to any worker not receiving the same or similar payments or benefits within the meaning of subsection (1)(a) of this section so long as—
and paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to this Act and sections 146 and 148(3) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 shall be construed accordingly.")
§ The Commons disagreed to the above amendment for the following reason—
§ 17A Because it is inappropriate to restrict regulations under Clause 15 in this way.
§ Baroness Miller of Hendon rose to move, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 17, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 17A, but do propose the following amendment in lieu thereof:
§
17B Page 8, line 20. at end insert—
("(4) The payment of higher wages or higher rates of pay or overtime or the payment of any signing on or other bonuses or the provision of other benefits having a monetary value to other workers employed by the same employer shall not constitute a detriment to any worker not receiving the same or similar payments or benefits within the meaning of subsection (1)(a) of this section so long as—
§ The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move.
§ The amendment I am moving today is very similar to the one passed at the Committee stage in your Lordships' House. I moved that amendment because, although the Government had indicated that they would bring forward their own amendment to achieve the same objectives as mine, they had at that time been unable to do so. Indeed, subsequently the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Highbury, told me, both in a letter and at a meeting, 1362 that there had been certain problems in drafting an amendment. After discussions with Ministers at the end of last week, a mutually acceptable approach was reached in the form of this amendment. I understand that the Government will accept the amendment both here and in the other place.
§ Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 17, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 17A, but do propose Amendment No. 17B in lieu thereof.— (Baroness Miller of Hendon.)
§ Lord McIntosh of HaringeyMy Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for the way in which she has moved this amendment. I am pleased to confirm that the Government can accept it in its latest form and will do so here and in another place. It was our intention to replace the power in Clause 17 with a substantive provision. Unfortunately, that proved not to be possible in the time available. We had informal consultations with interested parties which revealed complications. In the end we judged it better to give ourselves more time to deal with the issue.
Nevertheless, I should take this last opportunity to restate briefly the Government's position. We made it clear in the Fairness at Work White Paper and subsequently that the existing law allows an employer and worker, if they wish, to conclude a contract on terms which differ from those of a collective agreement which would otherwise apply to the worker. That is the position now and it will continue to be the position once the scheme for statutory trade union recognition is in place.
Of course, collective agreements are increasingly sophisticated and many already provide flexibility in the form of performance related pay and benefits, for example. So employers who have negotiated such agreements may feel no need to negotiate different terms for individual workers. But other employers may wish to do so. They are free to do so and they will continue to be free to do so. The only proviso is that in doing so they must not discriminate in an unlawful way; for example, on grounds of race, sex, disability, trade union membership or non-membership. We believe employees should be protected against dismissal or detriment if they refuse to give up the terms of a collective agreement. For example, it should not be permissible for an employer to say, "Unless you agree to an individual contract and give up the collective agreement, I will see that you are never promoted again". We shall continue to work to draw up regulations to protect workers from such pressures.
We agree with the noble Baroness that the mere fact that one worker has received benefits under an individual contract cannot constitute a detriment for those who do not receive such terms. Of course it will remain unlawful to link the granting or the withholding of benefits to a worker's membership or non-membership of a trade union.
The Government would have preferred to deal with these matters in the regulations. However, I accept that the point was of particular importance to the noble 1363 Baroness and her colleagues and I am pleased that we have been able to reach a mutually agreeable compromise which will allow the Bill to complete its passage today.
§ Baroness Miller of HendonMy Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the situation. I ask the House again not to insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed and to agree to Amendment No. 17B.
On Question, Amendment No. 17B agreed to.