Clause 23 - Inducements relating to union membership
Employment Relations Bill
10:30 am
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon, Conservative)
This is a new provision, unlike most of the provisions in the Bill. Therefore, it deserves to have a certain amount of time spent on it. Clause 23 would introduce new provisions to give workers the right not to have offers made to them where the employer's ''sole or main purpose'' is to induce the worker to do or not do certain things, such as become a member of a union or take part in its activities. If a worker feels that his rights under the clause have been breached, he can apply to an employment tribunal within three months of the alleged inducement. Fines for the company are involved.
The Bill is strictly drafted. In essence, the employer may have another legitimate reason for offering an inducement to the workers, such as to reward high performance or offer bonuses. Workers may deserve to be given bonuses for their hard efforts. The drafting could be interpreted in such a way that it, in effect, stopped a company from managing effectively and offering incentives to individuals, so that they do their best for themselves and for the company.
We suggest that the employer should be criticised only if their sole purpose is to induce the worker out of union membership or involvement and that the clause should not include the ''main purpose'' test. The clause could lead to hard-working, successful, innovative employees not having their contributions recognised.
In certain circumstances, companies would have to weigh up the extent to which they were inducing legally or illegally. The impact would be that companies said that they would not go down the route of offering incentives but deal only with the union. That may be the object as far as certain hon. Members are concerned—I do not know. However, it would be a negative move and a throwback to the way in which things were done years ago. It is not the modern way to do things and it would cut the ability to incentivise. It would also go directly against this Government's claim to be looking to increase productivity and enterprise in the economy.
Unless it is applied more directly, this measure will go against what it is intended to do. There are wider issues, to which my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk and I shall refer in the stand part debate.
I have just been speaking to amendments 39, 40 and 44. Amendment No. 41 inserts a defence for the employer if a worker has asked for an inducement not to be a member of a trade union, or to take part in its activities. If the Government are going to be insistent and to ignore what I have been saying in relation to the other three amendments, which I feel may be the case but we live in hope and wonder, amendment No. 41 becomes even more important. As things stand, the company and the worker could do a deal relating to the worker's pay and conditions. People are entitled to do such deals with their bosses.