Member News
A Bill presented by John McDonnell MP to amend section 232B of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to extend the circumstances in which, by virtue of that section, industrial action is not to be treated as excluded from the protection of section 219 of that Act.
John McDonnell (Lab, Hayes and Harlington) said his private bill only involved minor clauses but argued "it could make a significant impact on restoring basic civil liberties and changing the climate of industrial relations in this country."
He reflected on the complexity of the legislation surrounding industrial relations and balloting, as well as a series of legal actions that he suggested had created a degree of uncertainty. The "judgments frustrate the democratic process that this House thought it was installing and strengthening within trade union legislation", he argued.
Giving examples, he talked about the ballot of Unite against British Airways, the RMT union and EDF energy in 2009 and Metrobus against Unite in 2009. He said "individual decisions of individual judges" was "destroying the industrial relations climate in certain sections of our industrial base."
Outlining what the bill intending to do, he said it would "complete the intention of the original legislation and covers the gaps interpreted by the courts" by amending section 232B of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. He said it would bring industrial action legislation into a "consistent relationship with electoral law and practices generally".
David Nuttall (Con, Bury North) noted he was the president of the Conservative Trade Unionists (CAW) and said he was "not persuaded that the Bill is merely a technical measure" and also did not agree that regulations were "necessarily complex". He felt there was a "danger that the Bill could be a Trojan horse" for further legislation. He felt the BA decision should be given "time to bed down, as it put forward a fairly clear view of the law."
He said there was strong argument for increasing the notice period and suggested the "substantial compliance" element was a "novel concept". The bill was leading towards "legislate for incompetence", he suggested and also felt the "burden of proof is being placed completely on the employer".
Shadow minister for business, innovation and skills (Nia Griffith) felt the current situation was unsatisfactory and increased the risk of unofficial action. She said Labour could not "endorse the particular legal mechanism proposed in this Bill" as she said it "would reverse the onus of responsibility to prove that the ballot would not have affected the result by placing the onus on the employer."
Charlie Elphicke (Con, Dover) felt the bill created "new uncertainty" and that the new test of "substantial compliance" would also lead to confusion. He said the member "could have worked with his own party to produce something that could achieve the kind of consensus that there should be for private Members' Bills."
Philip Davies (Con, Shipley) argued the bill was "now surplus to his requirements" given the Court of Appeal ruling on the BA dispute and said he was "content with the law as it stands". On burden of proof, he said "this is a tactic to ensure that the employer will never be able to stop any kind of strike action because they will never be in a position to do so". He concluded by focusing on the RMT and Network Rail strikes.
Parliamentary under-secretary of state (Minister for Employment Relations, Consumer and Postal Affairs), Edward Davey began by stating that the "case law that has amassed this very year suggests that the concerns of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington are not based on what is true". He stated that the government operated an "open-door policy for trade unions" and commended the work of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service.
He said "successive Governments have taken the view that the legal framework of our industrial relations law is basically sound, and this coalition Government certainly share that view."
The supporters of the Bill argue that the law is too complex. According to them, it places too many procedural obligations on trade unions and as a result it is difficult for unions to comply with the last dot and comma of the law's many provisions. It follows, they say, that trade unions must be given more wriggle room to ensure that they can operate within the law. According to the Bill's sponsors, the existing disregard, which provides some wriggle room, needs to be extended.
On arguments relating to the complexity of the legal situation, he said "both trade unions and employer should be accustomed to it by now" and said he did not "think the law should be relaxed to preserve poor methods of working within unions."
He said the government strongly oppose removing the requirement for an error to be accidental and difficulties with the proposal to reverse the burden of proof and concluded the bill "would do nothing to shift employment relations on to the new ground of employee engagement."
Jacob Rees-Mogg (Con, North East Somerset) felt caution should always be applied when allowing exemptions as "because as soon as we do, people work out how to use them for a purpose other than that which was initially intended". He called for the bill to be rejected.
The debate was adjourned, to be resumed on Friday October 29, 2010.
Progress:
House of Commons
1st reading: 30 June 2010
2nd reading: 17 June 2011
Dods Parliamentary Communications Ltd