Trade Union Bill (First sitting)

Tom Blenkinsop Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

I declare my membership of Unite the union and my trade union membership and representation as a senior rep over the past 14 years.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

I am a former Community trade union officer, current Community trade union member and chair of the Community parliamentary group.

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

I am a member of the GMB and a former trade union official.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)]

Q 30 You talked about work environments modernising and work practices modernising. I think one of the big changes in the last decade or so is the fact that people want more confidence in companies and public bodies, which means that they have to be more transparent and accountable. One of the clauses in the Bill wants to bring trade union practice up to date with existing best practices as public bodies have to publish all spending over £500. Do you agree with that?

John Cridland: The CBI has concentrated on the core parts of the Bill that most affect our membership, which are the strike thresholds and the confidence around strike arrangements. We support the Bill as a whole but we would leave those other arrangements for the Government to determine through Parliament and the certification officer. Those are probably not the aspects of the Bill that most employers would have at the front of their minds.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

Q 31 Going back to Stephen’s question about the clause, where you are saying that you want trade unions to support a Bill that has a clause providing that there should be more transparency on trade union spending. That is possibly one of the areas in this country which shows the most transparency on spending. You have then come here, and Dr Marshall has given evidence to this Committee, providing no evidence for your statements. Do you think that may undermine your argument in support of the Bill? You are asking for that type of legislation to be put through, but we still have not been given any objective evidence.

Going back to an earlier comment, Mr Cridland, you talked about concern about disruption and said that, to provide more confidence, you wanted to support this Bill to stop potential trade union actions, yet you also said that it was too difficult to investigate an illustrative example about striking workers in the education sector. Your colleague, Dr Marshall, also said that those investigations had not been conducted. What is the Committee supposed to believe? We are getting subjective statements, but not one of you can show us any objective investigation into your own members’ views on this matter.

John Cridland: With respect, I think that there are two separate points there. There is the mandate that we have to speak for the CBI as a representative body of the views of our companies. There is a separate issue of how the Office for National Statistics captures the impact of industrial action on the economy. I am responsible for the first. I am not responsible for the second.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

Q 32 But you have not asked your members at all or done any objective studies among your own members, either of you. Has the CBI?

John Cridland: The CBI operates under a royal charter. We are a democratic body. We have elected regional councils. Those councils formulate the opinion of the CBI. We have 140 trade associations, which contribute to that policy-making process. We formulate a point of view which is reflected in the submission we have made on the Bill. That is a process of policy formulation, where employers judge the impact on the economy of disruption and come to a view on how we can promote positive industrial relations.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

Q 33 Here is a question that you may have asked your members. At the moment I do not think that you have asked your members any question whatever, but here is a question. Have you asked your members about the potential for the rise in wildcat strike action by non-unionised workforces?

John Cridland: Yes, we have discussed wildcat action. There is already concern in the business—

[Tom Blenkinsop]

Q 34 By non-unionised workforces? Because in the private sector, of course, the vast majority of workplaces are non-unionised.

John Cridland: That is correct. Indeed. That is a matter which is regularly discussed in the relevant CBI governance bodies.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

Q 35 What would your interpretation be in relation to this Bill?

John Cridland: The overwhelming view of British business as formulated by our own policy and decision-making process is that—using the phrase that Mr Martin described—it is sensible to provide a failsafe against a small number of pieces of industrial action where there is not currently a strong enough mandate from the workforce through trade union ballot. That is the part of the Bill that we are most concerned about.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

Q 36 So there is no concern about rising wildcat action at all?

John Cridland: Yes. We discuss those issues, we look at the implications and we come—as an independent organisation entitled to form its point of view—to a conclusion. I reiterate that we were advocating this change five years before this Government brought it forward. This is not something where we have simply come to a conclusion on the basis of the draft proposals of the current Government.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

Q 37 That conclusion was based on no objective evidence from your members.

John Cridland: That is where I think you are, with respect, mixing two different matters. I have explained to you carefully how we formulate policy.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

Q 38 I am just a member of the Committee trying to get objective answers to questions.

[The Chair]

Let him answer the question.

John Cridland: It is quite different from the Office for National Statistics having information on the impact on the economy.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

Q 39 So to reiterate, still no objective evidence yet?

John Cridland: I stand by the CBI’s evidence. That is my evidence. That is what I am presenting to you.

[Seema Kennedy (South Ribble) (Con)]

Q 40 It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. Thank you to the witnesses. We have spoken about certainty and clarity in business. Of course, the most essential component of any business is the employees. Will the clear description of the trade dispute and the planned industrial action, which will now appear on the ballot papers, provide more clarity for union members and help them to know what they are or are not voting for?

Dr Adam Marshall: I am happy to begin on that. We support clauses 4 to 6 of the Bill and the requirement for greater information so that everyone can have that information. The point has been made very well through the course of this process that a very small proportion of the private sector workforce are unionised, so this impacts only a small minority of my membership but the point has been expressed to us that they want employees who are being balloted on the possibility of strike action to have maximum information available to them in order to take a decision on the way that they choose to vote.

David Martin: I have nothing to add. Speaking on behalf of my organisation, I do not know the exact percentage. Recognition reflects about 98% of my workforce, I would think. It is not something that I have delved into.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Blenkinsop]

Q 64 Good morning, Roy and John. I wanted to ask your opinion of the CBI’s evidence, in which they talked about facility time being more of an issue in the public sector than in the private sector. Roy, you know—being general secretary for workers represented in companies such as Tata, Celsa, Outokumpu, Forgemasters or Caparo—and I know, that the facility time agreed on those sites provides health and safety reps trained by the unions, who often become the next health and safety managers on site—for free for those companies. Will you go into the facility time implications that could become apparent on COMAH site safe workplaces?

Roy Rickhuss: Just briefly, obviously I am aware that facility time is probably more of an issue for the public sector—again, there is nothing to say whether that is politically motivated or not—but certainly in the private sector, in the industries that we work in, facility time is agreed with the employer, so the employer is happy and comfortable. It is interesting that employers, again, would probably say, “It’s agreed, it allows people to do a job of work both for the employer and the employee”—so they are attending meetings, doing planning strategy, representing people and ensuring that all the good industrial relations that we talked about are happening and working. Anything that impacts on or tries to interfere with that relationship will be detrimental to good industrial relations.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

Q 65 Would you also say that they get the technical expertise from the shop floor, which improves efficiency on site?

Roy Rickhuss: Absolutely. People who have worked in a job or industry for a number of years know that job and that industry as well as anyone, so the fact that they are able to sit down with their supervisors and team leaders, or for team brief and so on, and they are able to give of that experience and give across that help and advice is invaluable.

I am not sure where all this fits with the ACAS code of practice, which is excellent and has been used as a good benchmark for decades. Trade union activist officials have the right to paid time off to do their duties, which has never really caused a problem. I am not aware of anyone objecting to that or trying to change the ACAS code of practice. It has worked reasonably well for a long time.

[The Chair]

Okay. Very quick questions and answers now. Seema Kennedy.