Industrial Relations

Part of the debate – in the House of Commons am 12:00 am ar 4 Rhagfyr 1973.

Danfonwch hysbysiad imi am ddadleuon fel hyn

Photo of Mr Stan Orme Mr Stan Orme , Salford West 12:00, 4 Rhagfyr 1973

For damages, as my hon. Friend said. That decision has not yet been resolved. The union was fined £75,000 for trying to organise workers in 1973. Is that the type of justice that we should ask trade unionists to accept? Is that the type of justice that trade unionists will accept?

The National Industrial Relations Court and its actions, particularly flowing from the Heaton's and Con-Mech cases, is creating a separate identity and is beginning to operate its own rules within our legal system. That is very dangerous indeed. We on this side uphold the law. We want the law to be paramount in our society. But that law must not be bent when it suits certain people to bend it. In my opinion, the law has been bent.

A great deal has been said about sequestration and where the new rules came from. In the Con-Mech judgment Sir John Donaldson said : The use of these powers"— that is, sequestration— in the High Court almost always occurs in the context of a private dispute between two litigants who hope and intend never to cross each other's paths again.… All this is quite different in the field of industrial relations.… We have therefore considered whether there may not be jurisdiction for the court to issue the writs of its own motion upon being satisfied that the contempt of court is proved.… In our judgment the public interest requires in industrial relations cases such as the present that the court itself take the responsibility for issuing the writs of sequestration to the commissioners and that the complainants shall not be involved. The form of order will reflect this conclusion. That goes for every case coming out of the NIRC. I have talked to lawyers about this issue. They feel that it is a matter of grave concern that the normal law that appertains in the normal High Court is not applicable in this court. In consequence we take the strongest exception to it.

Many odd things have happened in this case. I have with me the correspondence of Clifford-Turner and Company when it arranged to pick up this money. Incidentally, I do not think that anyone will ever have seen so-called British justice act with the speed that it acted in this court. To try to get £10 out of anyone through the High Court would normally take 12 months. This court got £100,000 in a week. We have the curious matter of the clerk at Hebburn in telephone conversations—this was not done by letter—talking as follows : It was agreed that a cheque would be available for collection by a representative of the Commissioners on the 18th October, 1973. The cheque would be dated the 22nd October. The company said : We asked that the cheque be dated earlier than 22nd October, 1973 and in the event it was dated the 19th October. It was duly collected at approximately 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 18th October, 1973 by a representative of the Commissioners. There was no room for manœuvre there. The clerk to the council did not even inform the local authority, his own elected representatives, that he would hand over this money. What about the carrying out of the law in that regard?