Clause 23 - Inducements relating to union membership
Employment Relations Bill
10:30 am
Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk, Conservative)
The clause concerns inducements and detriments in respect of membership of independent trade unions. Proposed new section 145A replaces section 145 of the 1992 Act. It states:
''A worker has the right not to have an offer made to him by his employer for the sole or main purpose of inducing the worker''.
I ask the Committee to focus on amendments Nos. 39, 40 and 44. They would leave out ''or main''. The reason for the amendments is that the phrase ''sole or main purpose'' could be ambiguous. It does not distinguish effect from purpose, and its consequences go significantly further than the Government's stated intention, published in the DTI's consultation document on the 1999 Act, of prohibiting inducements or bribes being made of trade union members. The consultation document noted that employers often enter contractual arrangements with individual employees that contain different terms from the provisions of a collective agreement.
Will the Minister say how the clause will enable an employment tribunal to decide whether an employer's offer of arrangement—an offer that contains different terms from the provisions of a collective agreement—could be considered to have as its main intended purpose an inducement for the employee to give up certain statutory rights? Is it not entirely a subjective decision? I point out that there has been much debate and discussion on how judgments of the European Court of Human Rights should be incorporated into United Kingdom law. The ambiguous wording does not offer clarity or reduce uncertainty.
Amendment No. 41 would insert a new subsection in proposed new section 145A. It states:
''It shall be a defence for the employer if the worker has asked for an inducement not to be a member of a trade union or to take part in its activities.''
That would give the employee the right to request arrangements that contain different terms from the provisions of a collective agreement. I do not see how anyone could disagree with such a provision.
It is easy to forget that flexibility in the labour force is good not only for employers; it is often sought by employees who need a more flexible way to work. Above all, often, employees want the freedom to decide their own working times and conditions. That is in line with what the Government are trying to achieve with the right to flexible contracts. We have heard much talk over the past few months about the work-life balance, with an emphasis on flexibility and on employees having more choice. I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House have been following that debate carefully. Indeed, there is general consensus on the subject.
Amendment No. 43 would leave out subsections (1) and (2) of proposed new section 145D, on consideration of complaints. Subsection (1) states:
''On a complaint under section 145A it shall be for the employer to show what was his sole or main purpose in making the offer.''
Subsection (2) states:
''On a complaint under section 145B it shall be for the employer to show what was his sole or main purpose in making the offers.''
Given the disagreement over the best way to incorporate the Wilson and Palmer judgment into UK law, the Opposition feel that making employers responsible for showing their sole or main purpose goes a long way beyond the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights. Making employers responsible for proving their innocence could be burdensome, particularly to smaller companies. As we saw from statistics given by officials on Tuesday, many companies with between 21 and 50, 75, 100 or 150 employees will find the extra demand somewhat burdensome.
It is a slightly complex grouping of amendments but, in a nutshell, amendments Nos. 39, 40 and 44 would remove ''or main''. I have also explained amendments Nos. 41 and 43.