Clause 21 - Dismissal where employees taking protected industrial action locked out
Employment Relations Bill
10:00 am

Mr Hywel Williams (Spokesperson (Disability; Health; Social Security; Work and Pensions); Caernarfon, Plaid Cymru)
As has already been said, this clause arises in part from the short strike and very long lock-out in my constituency at Friction Dynamics. The clause is a tribute to the way the union and the workers conducted themselves, and to the courage and the persistence that they have shown over this lock-out.
The circumstances of the strike will be known to many hon. Members, and I do not wish to rehearse them here, except to say that the TGWU engaged in a long period of negotiation with the American employer who took over four or five years ago. These negotiations, about worker conditions and pay, were deadlocked. The workers went on strike for one week only and then were locked out. After eight weeks, under the law as it is, they were sacked. They continued to picket for two years and nine months until just before Christmas, one of the longest disputes in British industrial history. As the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) said, they won their industrial tribunal but they are still awaiting compensation.
The law allowed the employer to lock the workers out and then sack them. Clause 21 is a welcome partial remedy to the situation of lock-outs, but as and when procedures allow we will be able to return to what is, for me, the fundamental issue; the eight-week rule itself. Under clause 21, in a case such as Friction Dynamics where workers are locked out in week one, the protection would be extended to 15 weeks, and I thank the Minister for his letter to me confirming that after Second Reading. However, one of the weaknesses of this provision is that it will still be possible for the employer in such a case to sack the workers after the end of the 15-week extension period.
The vast majority of employers and unions will be very keen to settle industrial disputes well within the eight-week period without resorting to sackings, lock-outs and the unfortunate circumstances in Caernarfon, and I would want that to be normal in industrial relations. Those of us who sat through many weeks discussing the Employment Act 2002 will remember its intention. I welcome clause 21, but my reservation is that it does not address the eight-week rule in itself. I
welcome the clause, but I cannot accept that a legal strike can be protected for 56 days, but that everything changes on the 57th day. I hope that the Government will reconsider in due course and look at the eight-week rule again.
