Employment Bill [HL]

I thought the noble Baroness might enjoy that one. The amendment would undoubtedly complicate the law. It would retain the existing wording of Sections 174 and 176, both of which are already complicated in their construction. Moreover, the noble Lord’s amendment would actually add new wording to Section 174. Its effect would be to set additional statutory conditions regulating the ability of trade unions to expel or exclude a person for ““protected conduct”” and, indeed, for any form of conduct. The European court’s judgment was about the need to give greater autonomy to trade unions. I fear that this amendment may limit that autonomy further. For example, proposed new subsection (4C) sets new conditions on a trade union when it excludes or expels a person for any form of conduct, be it ““protected conduct”” or non-protected conduct. The union’s actions must be in accordance with its ““rules or established procedures””, and the exclusion or expulsion must not, "““prejudice the individual's livelihood or conditions of employment””." There are several problems with that wording. First, what does it precisely mean? At the very least it will give rise to debate and legal wrangling, more delay and costly legal intervention. What does ““established procedures”” mean? What would, "““prejudice a person's livelihood or conditions of employment””?" Indeed, could any form of detriment, however minor, constitute ““prejudice””? Where ““prejudice”” would occur, an expulsion or exclusion is always unlawful, whatever the conduct in question. For example, where a union member assaults a union official, the union could not lawfully expel that person if some ““prejudice””—which could have a wide meaning—occurs as a result. The noble Lord’s amendment therefore introduces an extra limitation on current union freedoms. The noble Lord’s amendment also changes the definition of ““protected conduct””. It would make it unlawful for a trade union to expel or exclude a person based on membership of a political party unless the individual concerned was a member of a party whose ““values and ideals”” were incompatible with the ““rules or objectives”” of the union. Again, what does ““values and ideals”” actually mean? Is this extra wording sufficiently clear to avoid unnecessary, but presumably predictable, legal challenge, dispute, delay and cost? In adding these extra restrictions on trade unions’ freedom to determine their membership, the amendment would produce some uncomfortable consequences, including—the noble Lord referred to this—the opportunity for vexatious litigation. It would enable the BNP, in particular, to challenge trade union decisions.