| Employment Relations Bill
|
|
Mr. Boswell: I am grateful to the Minister and, indeed, to all members of the Committee for the way in which the matter has been handled. I realise the Minister's difficulties, not least because he needs to consult the Minister of State. It is important that we do not make a hasty decision. The Minister signalled his readiness to find a solution to the matter. Two interests are involved, one being that of the participants who may wish to make representations to the Minister. I hope that they will. Indeed, I hope that they will share them with all the interests represented on the Committee. It is important to challenge them to express their views and, if possible, to come up with their preferred solutions. Then comes the question of trying to get a reasonable consensus among the parties in Committee. We may end up with some sort of proximity talks, in which those who have an interest talk to the Minister while we wait until they have finished before speaking. I do not mind how it is done, but it is important that there should be a common understanding and that we should share the objective of trying to find a solution. I accept the Minister's good will. I am sure that he will not sit on the question and then, without having tried, say, ``Nothing can be done''. I am sure that he will try. It is our job to encourage him to do so, but I judge that the best way to do that is to accept his assurance. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
5.15 pmAmendment, by leave, withdrawn. Mr. Boswell: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 25, line 10, leave out `generally'. The Chairman: With this it may be convenient to take amendment No. 239, in page 25, line 42, at end insert—
Mr. Boswell: We now pass to the duties of employers. Amendment No. 23 is purely probing. Under paragraph 17(2), an employer would be required
It is what I might call a literal-minded amendment. When I see the word ``generally'', I metaphorically reach for my revolver. I am reminded immensely of a former distinguished Member of the House—indeed, he was a Cabinet Minister—who briefly, many years ago, happened to be my next-door neighbour. Having retired from the Cabinet, he thought it entirely appropriate to take up a position on the Aynho village annual fete committee. He announced one year—he was feeling somewhat frail—that he would appoint himself a roving operator. That phrase has subsequently become family slang for doing very little in particular, but doing it extremely elegantly. I am worried about such a general obligation simply because it is not specific. In other words, an employer might say—probably not explicitly, but someone might argue on his behalf—``Of course, I co-operated generally, but when push came to shove, and the trade unions really wanted anything, that was a specific issue on which I did not co-operate.'' Would that be a breach of the provision? The converse implies that he would be a largo al factotum—a general gofer for whatever the unions wanted in connection with the ballot. He would have to co-operate generally, effusively and without reservation. I do not know which of those is likely to be the result of the wording that the Minister has produced. I am not a parliamentary draftsman and, nor is he, but he has their advice. I hope that he will reflect on that and perhaps help the Committee. Amendment No. 239 is more substantive. It makes the point, which we have made before, that employers have obligations; broadly speaking, the thrust of the bill is to impose a number of additional obligations on employers. However, the Government do not always impose matching obligations on trade unions. Someone was kind enough to draft for me a matching obligation that would required a trade union to co-operate generally—I am not averse to that word in principle—with the employer and the person appointed to conduct the ballot. In sub-paragraph (b) of the amendment, a union would have to give an employer such information as was reasonable to enable the employer to inform the workers of the employer's views in respect of the object of the ballot. I realise that we shall tackle the subject of blacklists in a later debate, and that this is not an appropriate time to raise the subject. However, if employers are to be required to co-operate with a ballot, either generally or specifically, the trade unions must surely have an obligation to be reasonably helpful. We must remember that, in order to meet the Minister's specifications, employers and unions will have a common objective in finding out the views of the membership. To put it slightly more vulgarly, there may also be a shared expense. Mr. Wills: Of course, I understand the hon. Gentleman's thinking—the word ``generally'' may be redundant in this context. However, I do not think that it hurts the legal force of the schedule—it may even do some good. The CAC must have considerable discretion if it is to deal adequately with non-co-operation in a recognition ballot. Rather than having primary legislation describing cunning ways of not co-operating, which, as they have been highlighted, will be circumvented, it is much more satisfactory to give the CAC the power to decide, because it will know non-co-operation when it sees it. An amendment that would circumscribe the CAC's discretion is unhelpful, and I hope that he will withdraw it. Mr. Boswell: I shall respond briefly to that point. While it may be desirable in principle to say that the CAC must adjudicate as part of its onerous duties, does the Minister concede that there may be cases when the CAC has a bee in its bonnet about certain conduct? It may be that certain employers have not helped themselves in presenting what they have done. What might have been a reasonable attempt to co-operate could be turned into another cause for grievance because an employer is accused of being not only against trade unions generally, but obstructive in the conduct of the ballot. Mr. Wills: One could go into it in all sorts of detail, but one must accept that the CAC will promote the cause of good industrial relations. The general point is whether to circumscribe its powers, and we think that it would be better not to do that. Amendment No. 239 would require a union to co-operate with the person running the recognition ballot. There is a certain asymmetry, as there is little that a union can do to impede the successful conduct of a ballot. It cannot withhold the addresses of workers from an employer, for example, or frustrate his access to them. A union has very little scope for other forms of non-co-operation, so I cannot see the need for paragraph (a) of the amendment. As for paragraph (b), it is a little absurd to suggest that an employer's opinions rely on knowing what the union thinks, unless the two are in closer partnership than the need to hold a recognition ballot implies. Paragraph (b) does not parallel the specific requirements for an employer to allow access to workers by the union, because an employer always has access to them, while the union does not. There is not much that a union can reasonably tell an employer, so there is no reason for paragraph (b) of the amendment either. Mr. Ian Stewart: The hon. Member for Daventry wants to put a reciprocal obligation on workers. I understand that that would take the form of giving employer-based information to workers, explaining the employer's position. Even under existing balloting procedure, such information is sent out by the Electoral Reform Society or the Unity Security Balloting Services at the same time as the ballot papers, as a matter of practice. Mr. Wills: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful and informative intervention. I had come to the end of my remarks trying to persuade the hon. Member for Daventry to withdraw the amendments, so I hope that he will now do so. Mr. Boswell: By a short head, and in the spirit of co-operation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Mr. Wills: I beg to move amendment No. 208, in page 25, line 44, leave out from `may' to end of line 48 and insert
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following: Amendment No. 24, in page 25, line 46, leave out from `order' to end of line 48. Government amendments Nos. 209 and 210. Government amendment No. 211, in page 37, line 16, leave out sub-paragraphs (1) to (4) and insert—
(a) to take such steps to remedy the failure as the CAC considers reasonable and specifies in the order, and (b) to do so within such period as the CAC considers reasonable and specifies in the order. (2) If— (a) the ballot has been arranged in consequence of an application under paragraph 47 or 48, (b) the CAC is satisfied that the employer has failed to comply with an order under sub-paragraph (1), and (c) the ballot has not been held, the CAC may refuse the application. (3) If— (a) the ballot has been arranged in consequence of an application under paragraph 51, and (b) the ballot has not been held, an order under sub-paragraph (1), on being recorded in the county court, may be enforced in the same way as an order of that court.'.
and amendment (a) to the proposed amendment, in sub-paragraph (3)(b), at end insert `(except owing to force majeure)'. Government amendment No. 212. Amendment No. 250, in page 37, leave out lines 29 to 33 and insert—
(2) If the holding of the ballot has been the result of a workers' request to end arrangements, the gross costs of the ballot, whether or not it has been cancelled, shall be borne, as to half, by the employer and, as to half, by the union (or unions).'.
Government amendments Nos. 213 and 214.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 1999 | Prepared 16 March 1999 |
