The trade unions have not personally approached me to discuss the new clause, but it seems as though they have approached a lot of Labour Members.
Let me mention the worst aspects of the new clause from the Conservatives' point of view. It would be virtually impossible to dismiss a worker conducting industrial action under proposed new section 238A(1) and (2). Currently, employers can only fairly dismiss workers who are conducting union-approved industrial action where, first, there has been no proper ballot; secondly, they have made reasonable steps to resolve their trade dispute; thirdly, they dismiss every striking worker; and fourthly, they do not re-engage any of them within a three-month period. Although that scenario is extremely rare, the provisions are vital. They ensure that an employer can ultimately get on with business when striking workers are making unreasonable demands. In our view, the provisions clearly already provide reasonable protection to those who are conducting authorised action.
Industrial action short of a strike would be legalised by proposed new section 238A(3) and (4). The effective legalisation of action short of a strike, such as work-to-rule or a sit-in, would empower unions in a way not seen since the 1970s, when work-to-rule formed part of the action taken by unions intent on crippling the economy. Unbelievably, unions would no longer be liable for the consequences of their actions under the new clause. That is of fundamental importance. Under the current law, injunctions can be granted against trade unions by the courts and damages awarded where actions that they have endorsed are viewed as unjustified or disproportionately damaging to the employer. That provides an important check and balance against inappropriate behaviour and is mirrored by a substantial body of law restricting an employer's conduct in a trade dispute. By removing liability on a worker engaged in industrial action, the unions would no longer be liable either. That would fundamentally unbalance industrial relations in our country.
Employment Bill [Lords]
Proceeding contribution from
Jonathan Djanogly
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 4 November 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Employment Bill [Lords].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
482 c168 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 01:23:25 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_505711
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_505711
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_505711