Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Debate between Lord Monks and Lord Callanan

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I will now reply to the debate on Amendment 21, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and Amendment 23 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, which have been grouped. These seek to limit how and when a work notice can be issued by an employer.

Amendment 21 seeks to place an additional and, in our view, burdensome requirement on employers in relation to issuing a work notice. Amendment 23 seeks to alter, fairly fundamentally, how a work notice operates. Both amendments would create unnecessary uncertainty for employers, unions and workers around their respective obligations for work notices.

Amendment 21 requires the employer to exhaust all options to prevent a strike before they issue a work notice. However, it is my submission that employers are already incentivised to avoid strike action due to the substantial cost and disruption that it causes them. If a trade union has given notice of a strike under Section 234A of the 1992 Act, which must happen before any work notice can be given, it seems reasonable for the employer to assume that the options to avoid a strike have, in fact, already been exhausted for the purposes of producing a work notice.

It is also not clear what the test would be for an employer to show that all the options had been exhausted to prevent a strike, creating significant uncertainty for employers and trade unions. The Bill does not prevent employers and unions continuing to negotiate to reach a settlement on the broader trade dispute and, we would hope, for the strikes to be called off. However, we know that negotiations can be complex and can cause uncertainty, so all parties, especially the public, need the fundamental reassurance that the minimum service will operate on a particular strike day. Therefore, the Government resist this amendment.

Amendment 23 seeks to alter how work notices are to operate by specifying that the work notice must identify only the number of persons required to work during a strike rather than actually naming them. There are a number of problems with this approach. First, trade unions are required under the legislation to take reasonable steps to ensure that members identified in the work notice comply with that notice. For that to be true, the trade union would need to see the work notice and to know which union members have been identified as required to work in order for it to take those reasonable steps to ensure that those members attend work rather than going on strike. Secondly, this amendment could lead to confusion between employers and workers about who exactly is required to work, particularly in instances where a large number of individuals are employed to deliver essentially the same duty—for instance, call handlers. There would no longer be workers

“identified in a work notice”

for the purposes of paragraph 8(3) in Part 2 of the Schedule. Consequently, the provision removing the automatic protection from unfair dismissal would presumably also not apply, and therefore cannot be accepted.

I reassure noble Lords that individuals named on a work notice will be notified of this as regards themselves only. They will not be issued with the work notice itself, and the work notice will not be a public document. Unions will be bound by data protection law in the usual way, and there will be no sanctions or consequences for individuals if the minimum service level is not then achieved.

Identifying individuals to work in advance of the strike day helps to provide clarity for workers, unions and employers about who exactly is required to work and the arrangements for that particular working day, as well as strike. Without this we believe it will cause confusion and would potentially lead to minimum service levels not being achieved, continuing the disproportionate impact strikes can have on the public, as well as potentially costly and unnecessary litigation between unions and employers.

Finally, let me pick up on the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady.

[Lord Monks (Lab)]

Would the Minister accept that there is tremendous scope for victimisation in the provision that he is talking about, which this probing amendment is opening out? If the work notice is imposed on union officials—convenors, shop stewards, secretaries or whatever—they are in an extremely vulnerable position. They may have been doing the negotiation. They may have been regarded by the employer as awkward. All of a sudden they are put in the frame to say that you are coming into work, regardless of the role they may have played in the origins of the dispute. Is this not a victimisation permit for employers to use in all kinds of circumstances?

I worked in a place where the senior steward had been sacked and was victimised, and it is quite a common occurrence—other colleagues here will perhaps know more about that than me. It seems that the Government are giving a blank check to employers to take on individuals who are prominent in the union, and putting them in an impossible position of being summoned in by the employer at the same time as they may well have been leading the workers in the particular dispute that is taking place. What would the Minister say about that idea that he is giving a charter for victimisation?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I understand the noble Lord’s concerns but I do not believe he is justified in his worries. The Bill is clear that an employer must not have regard to whether a worker is or is not a member of a union when issuing a work notice. If an employee feels that they have been unfairly targeted then they can raise a grievance with their employer or ultimately take legal action to challenge whether the work notice complied with the law. That would then be a matter for the courts to decide.

Prime Minister: Trade Unions

Debate between Lord Monks and Lord Callanan

Monday 19th December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

No matter how many times Opposition Members ask the same question, they will get the same answer. We have accepted the recommendation from the pay review body. The next step is that another pay review body will presumably look at the issue again next year and take account of the impact of inflation and workforce patterns on availability and recruitment, et cetera, for this year. That is the appropriate time to do it.

[Lord Monks (Lab)]

My Lords, during the recent crisis, the mood of the nation was clearly that we were all in it together and people observed common rules—with a few exceptions in Downing Street and Barnard Castle. However, that is not the public mood in the current cost of living crisis; the mood is much more divisive, and the burden is falling almost totally on public servants. Is this not a recipe for strikes and for key workers leaving the essential services on which we all depend? Will the Government adjust their position and discuss with the TUC and relevant unions how we can recreate that mood of being in it together, come through this crisis and put an end to the damaging disruption?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

We sit down with the TUC and others to discuss these matters, and we worked together during the pandemic. I remind the noble Lord that the TUC does not represent all workers; 75% of workers in this country are not in trade unions.

Trades Union Congress: Levelling Up

Debate between Lord Monks and Lord Callanan

Wednesday 29th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I fear that I am not familiar with the provisions in the procurement Bill. It is not a Bill that I am responsible for, but I will certainly have a look at the point the noble Lord makes.

[Lord Monks (Lab)]

My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, might find that his voting figures are a bit shaky after last week’s by-election results. Why are the Government messing around with more antiunion legislation at a time when they are also lifting the cap on bonuses, doing absolutely nothing about inflation in boardrooms and in some parts of financial services, and ignoring their own experience of working closely with unions on the furlough scheme, which worked very well and was very successful? That experience should provide a blueprint for tackling the cost of living crisis, so will the Government make an effort, a proper effort, to find common ground in the current very difficult circumstances, instead of stoking conflict with the unions?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

Nobody is stoking conflict with the unions. I do not know what antiunion legislation the noble Lord is referring to, but if he means the minimum strike guarantee, that was a manifesto commitment. I would have thought he would be in favour of a service being provided to the travelling public to enable other ordinary men and women to go to work when they want to do so.

Fire and Rehire

Debate between Lord Monks and Lord Callanan

Wednesday 15th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

That will depend on the individual circumstances of many people. The pandemic resulted in a number of people reassessing their life choices and if they have decided not to go back into the labour market, I am not sure that is something we can implicitly control. But as I said, we have 600,000 more people in work than before the pandemic and one of the lowest unemployment rates in the western world.

[Lord Monks (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government were right in their condemnation of the disreputable behaviour of P&O Ferries recently, but I also read a lot in the papers about the Government considering introducing a Bill which will make it lawful to replace striking workers with agency workers. I am puzzled about what the difference is between what P&O has done and the kind of thoughts that are obviously alive in Government at present. What is the difference?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The difference is very clear. What P&O did is potentially illegal. Investigations into both criminal and civil wrongdoings are ongoing, so I cannot comment on those particular investigations, but if trade unions are considering holding the travelling public to ransom, as many of them are, then it is right that we should look at all available options, and we will do so.

Uber: Supreme Court Ruling

Debate between Lord Monks and Lord Callanan

Monday 1st March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

Of course, it is always better if these matters are settled without court action. As I said in a previous answer, we are committed to bringing forward an employment Bill. I thank the noble Lord for his support.

[Lord Monks (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. Will the Government now enshrine the very welcome Supreme Court judgment in statute by including its principles, plus the availability of workplace pensions, in the long-promised but long-delayed new Bill on employment rights and the gig economy? Will they also reject the expected campaign by Uber and other global tech companies to reverse or limit the judgment and so strike a blow against bogus self-employment, with all the risks to the tax base and other problems that it incurs, and eliminate abuses in the gig economy?

Workers’ Rights

Debate between Lord Monks and Lord Callanan

Tuesday 26th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I can only reiterate the Answer I just gave: there is no government plan to reduce workers’ rights. Our manifesto promised, among other things, to get Brexit done and to maintain the existing level of protection for workers provided by our laws and regulations.

[Lord Monks (Lab) [V]]

Surprisingly, it did not take long after Brexit for the Government to consider shredding the working time directive, which deals with maximum hours, rest breaks and, importantly, minimum holidays. Instead of making vulnerable workers more vulnerable, when will the Government tackle abuses in the labour market, such as the growth of one-sided zero-hours contracts and other exploitative measures? These should be the priority targets, not attacks on workers’ established rights.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

There is no plan to make vulnerable workers more vulnerable, as he put it. The House should be in no doubt that the Government will always stand behind workers and continue to stamp out unscrupulous practices where they occur.