Clause 14 - Information about union membership and employment in bargaining unit
Employment Relations Bill
4:00 pm
Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 31, in
clause 14, page 13, line 8, after 'specify', insert
', being not less than a period of 7 days'.
Mr Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst, Conservative)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 32, in
clause 14, page 13, line 16, after 'specify', insert
', being not less than a period of 7 days'.
Amendment No. 33, in
clause 14, page 13, line 25, after 'specify', insert
', being not less than a period of 7 days'.
Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk, Conservative)
New paragraph 170A(2) provides:
''The CAC may require an employer to supply the CAC case manager, within such period as the CAC may specify, with specified information''.
Amendment No. 31 would ensure that that period was not less than seven days. That makes sense to me, as it clarifies the specification. New sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) provide that the CAC may require a union and applicant worker respectively to supply specified information, and amendments Nos. 32 and 33 would ensure that that period was also not less than seven days.
The amendments are designed to effect a balance, as we are dealing with employers, unions and individual workers. It would be unreasonable to request that such information be provided within two, three or four days, which the Bill will allow, so we propose a period of seven working days. That is reasonable period in which to elicit the information, and it would mean that neither individuals nor employers were put under unnecessary pressure. It is a small amendment, but fair to all concerned. It is completely even-handed across the board. It would simply make it crystal clear that information could not be required within one, two or three working days. There would have to be a minimum of seven days.
Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Employment Relations, Competition and Consumers), Department of Trade and Industry; Bradford South, Labour)
I would like to help the hon. Gentleman, but again I cannot take the final step on the amendments.
Clause 14 places various requirements on employers, unions and, in limited cases, workers to supply the CAC with information. It does so by inserting new paragraph 170A. Amendments Nos. 31, 32 and 33 would ensure that the CAC could not demand that the information be supplied within seven days. They deal with the requirements on employers, unions and workers respectively. All the amendments deal with the same basic issue, so I shall address them together.
It may be worth reminding ourselves of the types of information that may be required. In most cases, that will be confined to the names and addresses of individual workers, or the names of individual union members. Often, the numbers involved are small. So far, many cases relating to the CAC have involved 100 or fewer workers.
We do not need to give the parties as long as seven days, as a minimum, to produce such basic information, which they will often hold as a matter of course anyway. The amendments would unnecessarily delay the process. The information is limited to that in the possession of the party in question. In other words, that party does not need to gather new data. Again, that lightens the potential burden and ensures that information can be produced quickly.
On occasion, the request to supply information may be more complicated and involve assembling a large number of records. I am sure that the CAC would be sensitive to the concerns of the party involved. In such
situations, the CAC would not impose excessively short deadlines. It has always acted reasonably in such matters up to now, so we can safely leave it in the hands of the CAC to take decisions about deadlines. There is no need to impose statutory minimums.
The amendments would create unnecessary and unwelcome rigidity in the statutory procedures. They could lead to unnecessary delay and play into the hands of those who seek to string out the process. I understand the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman proposed the amendments, but unfortunately I cannot support them. I ask him to withdraw amendment No. 31 and not to press amendments Nos. 32 and 33.
Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk, Conservative)
I am sorry that the Minister takes that view. I do not agree that the amendments would add an extra burden to the procedure, make it more complicated or give a rogue employer scope to try to string out the process. We shall return to the issue at a later stage and we might be able to persuade the Minister on it in due course, but in the meantime I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 4, in
clause 14, page 13, line 9, leave out
'either or both of the following'.
Mr Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst, Conservative)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 5, in
clause 14, page 13, leave out lines 12 to 14.
Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk, Conservative)
Amendment No. 5 is consequential on amendment No. 4. I refer the Committee to new paragraph 170A(2). It is important to go through that provision again, so that we can understand what the amendment would do. The paragraph states:
''The CAC may require an employer to supply the CAC case manager, within such period as the CAC may specify, with specified information concerning either or both of the following—
(a) the workers in a specified bargaining unit who work for the employer''.
That is fair, but the paragraph goes on to say that the employer may be required to supply specified information concerning
''(b) the likelihood of a majority of those workers being in favour of the conduct by a specified union (or specified unions) of collective bargaining on their behalf.''
How on earth will the employer necessarily know anything about that? How is he best placed to comment on it? It is asking a great deal to ask the employer to give an objective judgment on the likelihood of a majority of the workers being in favour of the conduct by a specified union of collective bargaining on their behalf.
The employer can be asked to state information about workers in a specified bargaining unit. That is fair enough, but asking the employer to make a judgment on the likelihood of employees being in favour of joining a specified union is asking a great deal, and is unnecessary. It would make sense to strike that measure out. I hope that the Minister agrees.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon, Conservative)
I wish to reinforce the points made by my hon. Friend, particularly about employers knowing the extent to which their workers are in favour of a specified union being likely to be recognised. Employers may not know the answer to that but even if they do I cannot understand why they should be forced to give a view on it at all. It is not an issue on which employers should have to give an opinion.
We hope that most of those things will go through on a friendly basis, but that will not necessarily be the case. There may be a history of industrial disputes and relations may not be good. The measure does not come from the right direction. It asks companies to put themselves in the unions' shoes, and I am not entirely sure why they should have to do that.
Mr Jon Cruddas (Dagenham, Labour)
Cannot the hon. Gentleman see the opposite side? From where he sits, it may well be to an employer's advantage to make it clear to the CAC how limited the number of prospective union members is, or to give it information on the degree of support for collective bargaining. The clause is not biased one way or the other. It seeks to maximise the information that goes to the CAC, and it should not be interpreted as a tacit nudge toward union recognition, or otherwise. It simply maximises the degree of information available to the CAC when it deliberates.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon, Conservative)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that valid point. If the clause were redrafted so that it was voluntary for employers to proffer such information, we would be much more relaxed.
Mr Michael Jabez Foster (Hastings and Rye, Labour)
Here we are again, suggesting that there is some conflict between the two sides, but that is not the case at all. The measure states that the CAC ''may'' ask an employer if they know what the situation is, if that information will help it to reach a resolution. It is not an obligation and, no doubt, the CAC would ask for such information only in appropriate circumstances.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon, Conservative)
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. In most cases, the CAC would telephone the employer to ask what the situation is, or would call the union. However, the clause provides for conflict situations in which one has to go by the book.
Mr Michael Jabez Foster (Hastings and Rye, Labour)
It may be that no agreement has been reached about recognition, but that may simply be because the employer has not yet reached a stage at which recognition is thought to be a good thing. That is not necessarily a conflict.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon, Conservative)
I should point out that I am not entirely sure whether this clause deals just with recognition. I think that it applies to the general flow of information to and from the CAC. The Minister might like to comment on that.
Mr Michael Jabez Foster (Hastings and Rye, Labour)
I would be grateful if the Minister made that clear. In any event, it will not change the principle, which I support, that in such a situation the CAC would want to use its discretion to get the maximum available information in order to pursue its purpose.
That is all the clause does. It provides the CAC with a permissive right to ask for information from employers. I cannot envisage a situation in which it could be damaging to an employer to be asked that question and to give a truthful answer.
Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Employment Relations, Competition and Consumers), Department of Trade and Industry; Bradford South, Labour)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye for getting to the heart of the point and for clarifying the motivation of the clause. I shall speak to amendments Nos. 4 and 5 together. They amend clause 14, which allows the CAC to require the union, the employer and, where relevant, workers to supply it with information that it needs to exercise its functions under the statutory procedure.
There are a number of points in the statutory procedure, in which the CAC's decision depends on certain tests being applied in respect of the application before it, whether for recognition or derecognition. The first concerns the acceptance or admissibility stage. For an application for recognition to be admissible, the CAC must, among other matters, be satisfied that 10 per cent. of workers in the proposed bargaining unit are members of the union and that a majority of workers in the unit are likely to favour recognition. Conversely, for an application for derecognition to be admissible, the CAC must be satisfied that 10 per cent. of the bargaining unit favours an end to recognition and that a majority of the unit would be likely to favour an end to recognition.
Later in the process, the CAC may conduct further checks to establish the validity of a bargaining unit that has been agreed by the parties or decided by the CAC. It may also conduct a check of union membership evidence to decide whether the union should be awarded recognition without a ballot. In order to decide union membership levels in the bargaining unit, the CAC case manager checks the names of union members supplied by the union against the list of workers supplied by the employer. Unions, and sometimes employers, will often submit petitions in support of their application. The CAC case manager will also seek to verify that the workers who have signed a petition are members of the bargaining unit.
The CAC currently seeks the voluntary agreement of the parties to provide it with such data. Establishing these voluntary agreements inevitably causes some delay. In some cases, there has been an initial refusal by one party to co-operate. I am pleased to state that the CAC has always managed to find a way around such difficulties and parties have ultimately agreed to disclose the information. However, it is clear that, without the parties' goodwill, the statutory procedure may be delayed or frustrated. That is why we wish to give the CAC an ability to require that information where necessary.
Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 would remove the requirement for the employer to supply information that relates to the likelihood of a majority of workers favouring recognition. Opposition Members believe that the employer should only be obliged to provide information about whether he employs a particular worker. Perhaps they are concerned that employers might be required to supply evidence that would assist
a union in demonstrating that a majority of workers are likely to favour recognition. I would like to put their minds at rest on that point. The CAC will require information only for the purposes of verifying evidence supplied by the union. In the majority of cases, it will be limited to a list of the workers in the bargaining unit, and will be used by the CAC case manager to prepare and to submit a report to the CAC. The report—not the information—will be copied to the employer and the union.
The hon. Gentleman's amendments would have an effect that he would not wish them to have. The power to allow the CAC to require information about the likelihood of workers supporting recognition has been included for good reason. The statutory procedure provides a process for determining not only union applications for recognition, but applications by employers and workers for derecognition. When an employer applies to derecognise the union, he must satisfy the CAC that 10 per cent. of workers in the bargaining unit favour an end to recognition, and that a majority of workers are likely to do so. Those are points that my hon. Friends have made. It is a balancing exercise, which we believe is appropriate. In most cases, the voluntary approach works, but if there is an attempt to delay the process, it is right that the CAC should have that power. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk, Conservative)
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.