Clause 21 - Dismissal where employees taking protected industrial action locked out
Employment Relations Bill
10:00 am
Mr Albert Owen (Ynys Môn, Labour)
I, too, want to concentrate on the Friction Dynamics case, which involved the locking-out of employees taking protected industrial action. I welcome the clause as a positive step towards the prevention of a repeat of such injustice. The incident occurred in the constituency of the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams), but it affected my constituents, many of whom still work at Dynamex Friction, which now operates in that location. I pay tribute to the strikers and the union for taking the case the whole way, and I applaud the Government for listening to the arguments that were made by many Members of this House and by the TGWU.
I have concerns about the eight-week rule because anomalies in the 1992 Act were carried through into section 238 of the Employment Relations Act 1999. The eight-week rule is embedded in the provisions, but the protection falls subject to the employer who fails to take the procedural steps to solve the dispute. Friction Dynamics is cited as one case in which the eight-week rule failed. However, it is one case too many, and it has profound implications for industrial and trade union law.
The clause will give protection in future action because it addresses the issue of the lock-out period. I remind the Committee that, in April 2001, Dynamex Friction—the same company in all but name—sacked 86 official strikers who had returned to work after one week and found themselves locked out. They were given an ultimatum. The tribunal in October 2002 found that the company had no desire to settle the dispute within the procedures of the Act; it made no attempt to resolve the dispute by following the eight-week rule. The workers were unfairly dismissed and temporary labour was used in their place. The company appealed, purely to extend the period of the strike. It went to the eleventh hour and then pulled the appeal, knowing that it was falling foul of the law and owing £1.3 million in compensation to those workers in redundancy, holidays and arrears of pay. That company had received grants from the Welsh Development Agency. I know that that is not the issue with regard to the Bill, but it is important to put it on the record.
The clause extends beyond the basic 56 days the protected period during which official strikers are locked out. In theory, the new extended protected period—including the initial period of eight weeks, plus the period where they are locked out—relates to an indefinite strike period, such as in the case of Friction Dynamics. Good, genuine employers are not worried about eight weeks; if they really want to settle a dispute, they can settle a dispute. Only rogue employers such as Friction Dynamics have to worry
about time factors, and the company pushed it to the limit.
This measure will help and is a positive step. However, what direct action would be taken against an employer if it were to employ temporary labour during the lockout period? I understand the theory and provision of the Bill, but I believe, in the light of the Friction Dynamics dispute, that this hurdle may be a little too low. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to respond by saying not only what action would be taken against the temporary labourers, but what action would be taken to prevent a company from doing exactly what Friction Dynamics did; that is, go through the motions of a tribunal and appeal and then go into liquidation? Also, will the clause be monitored over the period to prevent a similar injustice to that of Friction Dynamics' workers, which, in the 21st century, is an absolute disgrace?