Employment Bill [HL]

I was not going to deal with this, and am therefore particularly grateful for the opportunity to do so; it is right that I should. In the form in which I first tried to draft this, I had some language at the end about the union not acting arbitrarily or capriciously. That was very broad and a bit vague. I therefore tried to narrow it to the only form of abuse of a dominant position—or trade union muscle power—that really matters to the individual. I am not suggesting that the way I have tried to do it is the only way. However, to answer the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, I say that in the court’s judgment the question is decided on the basis of facts. The court says that Mr Lee did not suffer, "““any particular detriment, save loss of membership itself in the union””." That is true. It says in paragraph 50 that he lost nothing, "““in terms of his livelihood or in his conditions of employment””." It is clearly saying that it might have had to come to a different conclusion if real detriment had been suffered by Mr Lee. That is the first point. The judgment goes on to say: "““The Court has taken account of the fact that membership of a trade union is often regarded, in particular due to the trade union movement’s historical background, as a fundamental safeguard for workers against employers’ abuse and it has some sympathy with the notion that any worker should be able to join a trade union””." It then deals with that in a way favourable to the Government’s position: "““However … ASLEF represents all workers in the collective bargaining context and there is nothing to suggest in the present case that Mr Lee is at any individual risk of, or is unprotected from, any arbitrary or unlawful action by his employer””." The answer of the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, is that that paragraph indicates that—