Unionised Workers in the Housing Sector: Pay Discrimination
(2 days, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for granting this debate. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a member of Unite the Union.
I have spent my life in the trade union movement, so it is no surprise that my first Adjournment debate focuses on the principle of collective bargaining. A dispute in my constituency appears to expose a gap in the legislation, whereby an employer can offer pay increases exclusively to non-unionised workers—an unacceptable practice that can be exploited by employers not just in Knowsley, but across the country.
Livv Housing, the largest housing association in my constituency, manages 13,000 homes across Liverpool and the north-west. In March 2024, Livv reported reserves of £110.6 million. Over the past five years, it has recorded annual surpluses ranging from £14 million to £25 million, yet the workers who keep Livv running have faced years of real-terms pay cuts. Pay has fallen by over 30% in real terms since 2011.
It is no wonder that Unite and Unison members have been taking industrial action since October last year. Livv has refused to engage in meaningful discussions with the unions, but it has also declared the negotiations exhausted. The stonewalling has prolonged the dispute, and it is evident from my inbox that it is having an impact on my constituents who depend on Livv’s services. The casework load involving Livv is mounting up, and it is having a bad effect on people’s lives. Nothing is getting fixed, because its management will not sit down and settle the dispute.
In December, Livv wrote to all staff to say that they could have a 5% pay rise if they replied in writing to confirm that they were not a member of a trade union. The email says:
“If you are a non-union member and would like to accept the pay award offer of 5%, please can you send confirmation of your acceptance and confirm that you are a non-union member. A one-line email to confirm you wish to receive the pay award and that you are not a union member will be enough.”
This practice is completely contrary to the spirit of the Employment Relations Act 2004, which sought to protect workers’ collective voice and to stop inducement and similar practices. However, some employers keep trying to find a way around the protections, and we have to put a stop to it.
I have personally written to the chief executive officer of Livv on multiple occasions, urging the housing association to engage constructively with the unions and to seek a fair resolution, but Léann Hearne has gone as far as to inform me that she will no longer engage with me in writing. I have written to Livv and asked it to bring an end to the dispute, as has Mayor Steve Rotheram, and Knowsley council has passed a motion that asks it to get around the table and solve the dispute with the unions. This is all that any of us wants, especially the workers currently in dispute. Instead of doing that, Livv has focused its efforts on undermining collective bargaining.
We all know that workers get the best deal when they collectively bargain for pay and conditions. The strength of workers standing together is the only thing that can balance the power of an employer, which is why bad employers have done everything they can over the years to undermine the ability of workers to collectively bargain.
Some Members of the House will remember the 2021 case of Kostal UK Ltd v. Dunkley, in which the employer tried to undermine the collective voice of Unite workers.
Before talks had been exhausted, Kostal made a direct offer to the workforce and informed staff that they would not receive their Christmas bonus if they did not accept it by a deadline. Does that sound familiar? Like Livv, Kostal thought it had found a loophole in the law, but that was unanimously rejected by the Supreme Court. In its ruling, Lord Leggatt said:
“Such conduct denies the union its seat at the table and does not allow the union’s voice to be heard.”
Today, Livv Housing is doing just that.
What this behaviour does is create a two-tier workforce, pitting colleagues against each other. Imagine going into a workplace with a culture like that. If some employers can get away with this, you can bet that other employers will follow. It was Winston Churchill who said:
“The trade unions are a long-established and essential part of our national life. We take our stand by these pillars of our British society as it has gradually developed and evolved itself, of the right of individual labouring men to adjust their wages and conditions by collective bargaining, including the right to strike.”
I understand that the Minister cannot comment on individual disputes, but this is clearly something that can be exploited by employers across the country. The Employment Rights Bill provides a clear opportunity to close this loophole that we thought was closed so long ago, so I ask the Minister to commit to looking at amending the Bill to stop employers seeking to undermine collective bargaining by offering non-union members preferential treatment in pay awards, and to update me on those plans.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) for securing this debate and for her excellent speech. She has a long and proud record in the trade union movement, which she has brought to the fore today.
I want to start by setting out the Government’s approach to the important subject of industrial relations. We want employers and trade unions to come together to grow our economy. We know that the world of work is fairer and more productive when people can come together to negotiate fair pay and decent conditions. That is why we are resetting industrial relations through the Employment Rights Bill. We are repealing nearly every part of the Trade Union Act 2016, which tried to smother trade unions in form-filling and red tape and prevent them from doing their core job of negotiation and dispute resolution.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) for bringing forward this debate. I spoke to her beforehand, and I understand what she is trying to do. She has clearly outlined the case for the unions in her contribution tonight. When I started work for Henry Denny’s in Belfast in my early 20s, they asked me if I wanted to join the union. To be honest, I was not sure, but the guy told me it was compulsory, so I said, “That’s okay.” But here’s the story. I had the union on my side when I first started work at Henry Denny’s; I had it to back me up whenever I needed something. I had had a different opinion about what unions were and what they could do for me. The hon. Lady has outlined what the unions can do, I understand personally what they can do, and I look forward to hearing the Minister tell us what he is going to do.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his support for unions. I was a little worried when the debate started because he was not in his normal place. I thought there was going to be some sort of national emergency because the hon. Member for Strangford had not attended the Adjournment debate, but I am glad he is here and that he has spoken very positively about the benefits of joining a trade union.
I shall go back to some of the work we are doing to improve the industrial relations landscape. We are of course repealing the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, which, to our mind, only increased tensions and failed to prevent a single day of industrial action. We are going further in strengthening the voice of working people by making it easier for trade unions to get recognised, giving them the right of access to workplaces and making sure that they have enough time to represent their members. When the rights of working people are flouted, our new fair work agency will be empowered to investigate. We have recently run a consultation on modernising trade union laws so that they are fit for the modern workplace and the modern economy. That consultation closed on 2 December and we are currently analysing responses. We will publish a Government response to the consultation before Report stage of the Employment Rights Bill.
This is a transformative package that marks a new era for working people and I hope that hon. Members are in no doubt about the Government’s commitment to marking this new way forward. It is a way that brings a new deal for working people, making jobs more secure and family friendly, banning exploitative zero-hours contracts, supporting women in work at every stage in their life, and providing a genuine living wage and sick pay for the lowest earners. There will be further and faster action to close the gender pay gap, to ensure that rights are enforced and that trade unions are strengthened, to repeal anti-worker, anti-union laws, to turn the page on industrial relations and to end fire and rehire, while also giving working people the basic rights that they deserve at work from day one. This is a pro-business, pro-worker, pro-growth Bill from a pro-business, pro-worker, pro-growth Government.
As we know, a range of protections exist for workers against inducements and detriment related to trade union membership or activities. Of those, I will mention three that may be relevant to this particular situation. Section 146 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 protects workers against detriment being imposed by an employer for the sole or main purpose of preventing or deterring the worker from being a trade union member or taking part in union activities, or penalising them for doing so.
Through clause 63 of the Employment Rights Bill, we are enhancing protections against detriment by conferring a right on workers not to be subjected to detriment
“for the sole or main purpose of preventing or deterring the worker from taking protected industrial action, or penalising the worker for doing so.”
Section 145A of the 1992 Act protects workers against offers made by the employer for the sole or main purpose of inducing the worker not to be a trade union member or not to take part in union activities. Finally, section 145B of the 1992 Act protects members of trade unions that are recognised, or are seeking to be recognised, by their employer against offers made by the employer for the sole or main purpose of resulting in workers’ terms and conditions not being determined by a collective agreement negotiated by the union.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley indicated, we cannot comment on the extent to which existing legislation applies to a particular case, as that is ultimately a matter for tribunals and courts to determine. However, I hope it has been helpful to state clearly some of the existing protections that may be relevant.
It is also worth putting it on record that this Government expect employers to work in partnership with unions to resolve disputes through negotiation. We certainly do not believe that pay offers should be framed in a way that requires an individual to confirm that they are not a member of a trade union. At the very least, as my hon. Friend said, that goes against the spirit of good industrial relations.
I recognise that disputes are sometimes difficult to resolve, and I take this opportunity to highlight the important role that ACAS plays in this space. Its remit is to promote good employment relations, to advise employers and employees on workplace matters, and to resolve individual and collective workplace disputes. Employees and employers in a workplace dispute may wish to contact ACAS to get advice on employment law and workplace relations, and to help resolve their dispute.
Of course, resolving disputes through ACAS requires both parties to participate, and it is disappointing to hear from my hon. Friend that not only will Livv not engage with her on this matter, but it does not appear that it will engage with the trade union either. I hope Livv reconsiders because, through our “make work pay” agenda, we have been clear that it is our intention to ensure that workplace rights are fit for a modern economy, empower working people and deliver economic growth.
That is why we have introduced the Employment Rights Bill, which represents the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation. We will always listen carefully to any arguments on how the law on inducements or detriment could be improved, and we always welcome views on how we can reset industrial relations to create a modern framework that is fit for a modern economy and modern working practices.
I would welcome the opportunity to hear more information from my hon. Friend about the specifics of this issue, and I urge Livv to engage with her and the trade unions. I am open to looking at the case in more detail to understand what action, if any, is necessary, and I am always happy to work with my hon. Friend to ensure that trade union rights are properly observed in this country.
Question put and agreed to.