---

International Labour Law

Mr. Hood, it is always a delight to see you in the Chair and to have the opportunity to raise a subject of great importance. I stand here as a trade union MP, in the sense that I have the support of ASLEF, the train drivers’ union. However, the matter that I want to raise today has enormous importance right across the field of representation. I and other Labour Members of Parliament are here today because of the existence of trade unions. It is not an accident that trade unions began in the United Kingdom. We have always had a commitment—I think that it exists in the Anglo-Saxon character—that makes us strongly resent anything that happens to the detriment of fair play, in industrial relations or with respect to any organisational change. I think, therefore, that it is important that this country should uphold, as it does, the labour laws that are part and parcel of our commitment to fairness, decency and proper standards. I want to talk today about a bus company. The way in which United Kingdom companies operate, in the UK and elsewhere, affects their efficiency and their ability to succeed. It is their particular responsibility to ensure that what they do is properly supported by the rules of law and, more than that, that it clearly shows a proper commitment to justice and the general principles on which the International Labour Organisation declarations are based. It is therefore important to raise the matter of First Group. First Group is a very successful transport company. It has expanded from a very small base into the railway and bus industries. Very many companies are involved with it. It has been extraordinarily successful and, in this country, very well run. It has conducted proper industrial relations. It has a strong and robust connection with the Transport and General Workers Union and it has made its commitment to proper trade relations clear. It is therefore worrying to see, as it begins to expand elsewhere, that that may not necessarily be a tradition that is fully carried out in other countries. We should perhaps today consider some of the things that are happening, which will rebound badly not just on First Group but on the reputation of United Kingdom companies. We might first refer to passages in the ILO conventions on trade union rights and civil liberties. Members of Parliament frequently mention their commitment to the ILO conventions; I wonder how many of them have read the conventions, including the provisions that state"““that a system of democracy is fundamental for the free exercise of trade union rights””;" that for"““the contribution of trade unions and employers’ organizations to be properly useful and credible, they must be able to carry out their activities in a climate of freedom and security””;" and that a"““free trade union movement can develop only under a regime which guarantees fundamental rights, including the right of trade unionists to hold meetings in trade union premises, freedom of opinion expressed through speech and the press and the right of detained trade unionists to enjoy the guarantees of normal judicial procedure””." Another paragraph states:"““The International Labour Conference has pointed out that the right of assembly, freedom of opinion and expression and, in particular, freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers constitute civil liberties which are essential””." A commitment is also made:"““Although holders of trade union office do not, by virtue of their position, have the right to transgress legal provisions in force, these provisions should not infringe the basic guarantees of freedom of association, nor should they sanction activities which, in accordance with the principles of freedom of association, should be considered as legitimate””." That is all very clear and good and is well supported in a Parliament that has grown up because of reaction to the imposition of unfair or unacceptable laws. Why, then, do I worry about what First Group is doing elsewhere? First Group is a company that because it is successful—I am happy to record that—is expanding. In the United States it is not just expanding into one company; it is expanding into a much larger company than was originally intended. Forty per cent. of the non-management staff of Laidlaw International Inc., which First Student appears to be about to take over, for $2.8 billion, are represented by trade unions. Why should that be a matter for concern? First Group is facing a serious risk to its reputation and it is best to speak plainly. It is because of its continuing aggressive interference in workers’ organising rights, community consensus and the adequate funding of school transport services. I spoke to trade union representatives who came here from the United States of America, because I am very concerned about the reputation of transport companies, whether they operate in the UK or organise elsewhere. I knew very little of the situation and asked to be given a detailed brief. I was very surprised to see that, in spite of the fact that the company has pledged to support the principles of the ILO conventions on workers’ freedom of association, three different reports produced for the Teamsters union by well respected members of universities—Lance Compa of Cornell, a professor specialising in labour and human rights law, John Logan, a scholar and professor at the school of management at the London School of Economics, and Fred Feinstein, who was on the US National Labour Relations Board, the Government agency that enforces federal labour law—make it clear that there has been a consistent, targeted and deliberate attempt to make it almost impossible for members of the First Student companies to organise, meet together and operate as a proper trade union. There is considerable detail in all the reports, which I will spare you, Mr. Hood, because I hope that we can accept that anyone who wants to know the details will read the ““Third Report on Freedom of Association and Workers’ Rights Violations at First Student, Inc.”” Those matters were outlined to me by individual members of the Teamsters union. I was very taken by the representatives who came to the House of Commons. A lady who was a bus driver on a student bus was, apart from her accent, very much like the sort of person I would meet in my constituency. She was a lone mother, entirely on her own, who had found, in her job, a way to combine earning an income and running her family. She ran a bus journey for students, to and fro twice a day. She was not in any way an extreme or difficult person. She was the sort of person one would hope to see forming the cadre of trade union representatives. It is extraordinarily worrying that those workers were subjected to a targeted and consistent programme of something that I will not call persuasion, because it seems to me that persuasion, particularly on the part of management, must be couched in very controlled and considered terms; they were subjected to a very deliberate attempt to persuade them that joining the union or seeking together to create a union in their work place would lead to very direct consequences for them. One threat appears to have been, ““We’ll deal with your depot in the way that we dealt with Baltimore,”” where, as far as one can see, because the staff voted for trade union representation, they were told that that depot would be shut down—and that is what happened. We should be quite clear about such matters in this country. If a similar situation arose with a bus company in the UK, I, personally, and, I am sure, many other trade union representatives in this House, as well as those who do not directly belong to trade unions but are concerned about labour relations because of their commitment to fairness would seek to raise the matter time and again. The UK Government have made it plain that even though they have no intention of interfering with and should not interfere with the commitment of UK companies abroad to the legal systems in which they cease to operate, they nevertheless require those companies to take account of and be responsible to the ILO convention. I have made it clear exactly what that implies. The House of Commons has a direct responsibility to tell such companies, ““You may operate in the way you think best in a capitalist system. That is, of course, your responsibility: you are responsible to your shareholders and you have a responsibility to ensure that your performance is acceptable to those who support you. However, because you are a British company, you may not ignore aspects of responsible behaviour that we in this country regard as a norm.”” Commitment to the ILO is absolutely essential. Today, I received from Moir Lockhead a letter that I found rather nowty, as we would say in my part of the country. Let us say that I did not turn up when he wished to talk to a representative of his and independent monitor who"““would welcome the chance…to discuss the implementation of FirstGroup’s workplace human rights””." He assures me that, within the UK, the company will comply with its commitments regarding trade union organisations. The TGWU has made it clear that it finds it difficult to understand how a company that is so responsible in the UK and complies with its agreements with the trade unions could go so far to impede the creation of trade union rights within the United States. When we say that it is impossible to form a trade union within that company, we are talking not about the wilder shores of Saudi Arabia, the jungle regions of Colombia or some of the far-flung pits of Guatemala, but about the United States of America—a country that shares with us a common law system, approximately the same language and a financial system based on the capitalism that is now so fashionable. We have always regarded the United States as having direct roots in its relationship with the UK. I therefore feel more than justified in raising the issue of the anti-union behaviour there, which has been aggressive, deliberate, consistent and larded with the sort of threats that I would find wholly unacceptable if they were targeted at members of my constituency. I finish by making this point. I have in my time—I am only 21, but I have been around for a little while—met trade unionists and seen trade unions being run by people who were venal, inefficient, incompetent, arrogant and unacceptable. I have seen arguments put forward in the name of trade unionism that I found difficult to recognise, but I have also, over a lifetime of commitment to the labour movement, seen trade unions filled with people who were wholly committed to fairness, decency and the improvement of conditions for their fellow workers. I have seen people pay a high price for their trade unionism in this country, and I do not find that acceptable, but we now have a country that accepts the right of workers to organise. It is a very small thing to ask of a successful company in the transport industry that it should comply with the same standards and norms elsewhere, and I am astonished that it has not reached that conclusion of its own volition. The House of Commons would be unwise to ignore the behaviour of such a successful British company, lest it be thought that that is the way in which we operate as soon as we leave UK shores.