Standing Committee E
Tuesday 16 March 1999
(Afternoon)
[Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody in the Chair]
4.30 pm
Mr. Tim Boswell (Daventry): I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 23, line 11, after `small', insert `or'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 236, in page 23, line 16, at end insert—
`(f) existing staff representation, if any.'
Mr. Boswell: I welcome you back to the Committee, Mrs. Dunwoody. We have been behaving ourselves in your absence and intend to continue doing so in your presence.
I have the indelible impression in my mind of our absent and lamented colleague, the Minister of State, who I described recently as small and perfectly formed. The schedule refers to ``small fragmented bargaining units''. The purpose of the small, and even fragmented, amendment is to discuss whether that is the right way in which to draft provisions. The absence of a connecting pronoun, whether ``and'' or ``or'', and a conjunction or disjunctive gives a slightly different impression than if one had been included.
The phrase ``a small fragmented bargaining unit'' implies that it is a technical term because the unit must meet both tests. The Central Arbitration Committee might wish to interest itself in a bargaining unit that was small and therefore not viable or in one that was fragmented and therefore extremely complicated to administer. However, to draft the two descriptions without a conjunction seems odd—forgive me, under a moment of strain I referred to a pronoun earlier. I should be grateful for the Minister's response.
The Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Wills): I welcome you, Mrs. Dunwoody, to the Committee.
Before dealing with the grammatical analysis of the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), I shall remind the Committee of the background to the provision. If the union and employer cannot agree a bargaining unit, the CAC will have to decide on what the appropriate unit is. Its main criterion for doing that is the need for the unit to be compatible with effective management. The Bill lists other factors that it must take into account in deciding an appropriate unit. They include the desirability of avoiding small, fragmented bargaining units—a description that contains no conjunction. The amendment would change the provision to read: ``small or fragmented bargaining units''.
I hope that members of the Committee will agree that the phrase ``small fragmented bargaining units'', without a conjunction, would be particularly undesirable from the point of view of the employer. The CAC would probably view them as incompatible with effective management and, thus, inappropriate, so for additional clarity we have expressly made them something to avoid.
Making ``small or fragmented bargaining units'' undesirable would not be helpful. That would rule out a reasonable request for recognition of a unit of, say, 10 drivers in a firm of 40 drivers. There is nothing wrong with a small bargaining unit as long as it is compatible with effective management. Fragmented bargaining units were once the norm in this country. Fortunately, the common sense of both unions and employers means that they are now rare. If an employer wants bargaining units to follow a traditional, fragmented pattern, he or she is free to organise the business accordingly. It is important to avoid small and fragmented units. Experience tells us that that is the combination most likely to lead to disputes, which is what we want to avoid. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.
Mr. Boswell: I acted overhastily in trying to make a point and failed to mention my second amendment, an omission to which the Minister drew my attention. If I may, I shall speak briefly to amendment No. 236. I can cheer the Minister by saying that if he says that it is sensible and reasonable instead of sensible or reasonable, as he did on the last amendment, I am minded not to make difficulties and I shall not need to speak again. The amendment is about staff representation. One factor that might be taken into account when determining whether arrangements should be entered into by the CAC is whether proper staff representation already exists.
I am not wholly convinced about ``small or fragmented'' because I suspect that the conjunctive conjunction ``and'' rather than the disjunctive conjunction ``or'' might fit the bill better for us both. However, there will be more important issues on which to split hairs tonight, so I shall defer on that point, and ask the Minister to be equally positive on my second amendment.
Mr. Wills: I shall be extremely positive on amendment No. 236. I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that the CAC will take existing staff representation into account. Paragraph 12(4)(b) requires the CAC to take account of existing bargaining arrangements in determining the bargaining unit. However, if the hon. Member for Daventry is referring to staff councils and the like, I have to tell him that such bodies have no place in the Bill. They are no substitute for genuine collective bargaining. The proposed sub-paragraph (f) would therefore have no positive effect on deciding on an appropriate bargaining unit. As the sole function of paragraph 12 is to determine how the CAC should decide an appropriate bargaining unit, the amendment is redundant.
Mr. Boswell: With the leave of the Committee, I shall suspend my disbelief. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made: No. 190, in page 23, line 22, leave out from `application' to end of line 23 and insert
`under paragraph 9(2) or 10(2),'.
No. 191, in page 23, line 26, after `unit', insert
`, and (c) that bargaining unit differs from the proposed bargaining unit'.
No. 243, in page 23, line 27, leave out from `whether' to end of line 28 and insert '—
No. 244, in page 23, line 29, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert—
No. 192, in page 23, line 30, at end insert—
`13A.—(1) This paragraph applies if—
(a) the CAC accepts an application under paragraph 9(2) or 10(2),
(b) the parties have agreed an appropriate bargaining unit at the end of the appropriate period, or the CAC has decided an appropriate bargaining unit, and
(c) that bargaining unit is the same as the proposed bargaining unit.
(2) This paragraph also applies if the CAC accepts an application under paragraph 10(2B).
(3) The CAC must proceed with the application.'.
No. 193, in page 23, line 32, after `13', insert `or 13A'.—[Mr. Wills.]
Mr. Boswell: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 23, line 35, after `are', insert `fully paid up'.
The Chairman: With this it may be convenient for the Committee to consider the following amendments:
No. 16, in page 23, line 35, at end insert—
`and that their membership has not lapsed owing to resignation, disqualification or the non-payment of dues'.
No. 17, in page 23, line 47, leave out `significant'.
Mr. Boswell: I shall not detain the Committee for long. Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 are closely connected. We believe that people counted in for the purpose of membership should be genuinely members of the union. I say that in the interests of fairness and clarity rather than in pursuit of some vendetta, or Aunt Sally about a practice that might or might not arise. There is undoubted evidence of industrial malpractice from the rather scarred history of the 1960s and 1970s that people were inscribed as members of a union and given a card, but did not pay a subscription, which was no doubt done to rig proceedings. It was not unusual for that sort of thing to happen in university political clubs, which are not unions. The hon. Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas) shakes his head. I could quote an example, or even a joke, but I shall not do so. I did not participate in that practice, but I was not unaware of it.
In another context, hon. Members will remember the mythical workers who signed on for payments. For many years, the printing industry was presumed to have been staffed by people called D. Duck and M. Mouse. Those were the old days. We do not anticipate them returning, but we are anxious to have a proper understanding that people are not signed up as members for the purposes of determining a constituency for collective bargaining.
Amendment No. 15 would add the words ``fully paid up'' and amendment No. 16 would include only those members whose dues had not been allowed to lapse. Those are not unreasonable tests. Amendment No. 17 has a slightly different implication, referring to the qualifying conditions required before the CAC agrees to a ballot.
I have tried to be reasonably balanced towards both sides of industry. If anything, this is marginally a pro-union amendment. It refers to the number of union members within the bargaining unit who might inform the CAC that they do not want the union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf. The amendment would leave out the word ``significant'' because there is no defining characteristic for it. Something may be regarded as significant by only one person or 10 people, the only difference being that 10 times as many people have said that it has significance.
We have already suggested that paragraph 14(4)(b) may unfortunately reach litigation. A judge may decide that only one union member saying, ``I don't want a union in here'' is significant. I do not believe that the word ``significant'' means anything more than that one person is against the proposal. The Minister may want to use a different term of art, such as ``substantial'' or to add a specific percentage test, such as the one applying to the numbers asking for recognition. It is worth pausing on that point for the Minister's reply.
|
