Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Pat McFadden (Labour) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 24 July 2007. It occurred during Adjournment debate on International Labour Law.


International Labour Law

My hon. Friend referred in much of her speech to the activities of UK-owned companies operating abroad, particularly those of First Group. She compared its employment practices in the UK and in the US. She also referred to the campaign waged by the Teamsters union to obtain recognition at the company’s operations in the US. I know that the facts about employment relations in the company—my hon. Friend referred to recognition and the approach taken by the parties to recognition ballots—are contested, and I do not intend to become the judge and jury. She referred to several reports into this situation that had been commissioned by the union, and I accept what she says about them. The company has also commissioned its own report, which I understand reaches a different verdict. That makes it somewhat difficult for those of us outside the situation to come to a definitive judgment about a contested situation over union recognition. Instead of setting myself up as the judge and jury on the particular specific example that my hon. Friend quoted, I should like to focus on the broader issue of how we believe British companies should behave when operating abroad and what employment practices they should follow. One basic rule is that companies should always observe the employment law of the country in which they operate. We expect foreign companies operating in Britain to comply with our laws, and in the same way we expect UK companies to comply with the laws of the countries in which they operate. Obviously, the legal systems in those countries are designed to ensure that employment rights are enforced. When it comes to ILO obligations, the United States is not signed up to every convention that we are signed up to, and, in any case, virtually every ILO member state faces questions as to whether it is interpreting its obligations fully. These are not clear-cut issues, and different interpretations of treaty obligations are possible. This is not always as simple as saying that because these questions are raised, the basic international standards are not being observed. It should also be expected that the terms and conditions of work forces around the world will vary, as will even those between work forces in developed countries. That is because labour market conditions, tax and social security systems and so on differ from state to state.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
463 c227-8WH 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
Westminster Hall
Subjects
Companies Bus services Employment Industrial relations EU labour policy Transport Trade unions USA FirstGroup International Labour Organization
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk