Clause 27 - Role of companion at disciplinary or grievance hearing
Employment Relations Bill
9:30 am
Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk, Conservative)
Good morning, Mr. Stevenson. The clause clarifies the role of a worker's companion at a tribunal, but there are some ambiguities that need to be cleared up. The clause could imply that once a worker has chosen his companion, that person is obliged to attend the hearing. In any event, the companion will be subject to new subsection (2C)(b), under which he cannot address the hearing if the employee makes it clear that he does not wish the companion to do so.
Section 10(3) of the Employment Relations Act 1999 sets out fairly clearly the specifications as to who may act as a companion but nothing in the clause prevents an employee using that right to oblige another employee to attend the hearing. Although it is unlikely that many cases would arise in which an employee compelled a colleague to accompany him to a tribunal—perhaps to pursue another agenda—rights must be accompanied by responsibilities, and there must be certain safeguards to prevent any abuse of procedures that are designed to protect employees. That is the background to amendment No. 51.
I am sure that the Minister will be sympathetic to the amendment because we have tried hard to be as constructive and sensible as possible in tabling it. It would make a fairly simple change. New subsection (2A) states that the employer must permit the worker
''to be accompanied . . . by one companion who—
(a) is chosen by the worker; and
(b) is within subsection (3)''.
The amendment would ensure that the worker requested that the companion addressed the hearing. I would have thought that that was fairly straightforward.
Amendment No. 52 would leave out lines 14 and 15 on page 25. New subsection (2B) states that
''The employer must permit the worker's companion to—
(a) address the hearing in order to do any or all of the following—
(i) put the worker's case;
(ii) sum up that case;
(iii) respond on the worker's behalf to any view expressed at the hearing''.
The provision to allow the companion to respond on the worker's behalf is inconsistent with new subsection (2C), which states:
''Subsection (2B) does not require the employer to permit the worker's companion to—
(a) answer questions on behalf of the worker''.
I would be grateful if the Minister clarified under what conditions the companion might respond to views expressed while refraining from answering questions.