Melanie Onn: Brexit is no excuse to ditch workers' rights

The rules have ensured that, regardless of any Government’s ideology, hard-fought-for minimum standards have been protected. They have kept those rights a non-negotiable distance away from the potential deregulatory whims of Ministers who may take the view that such rights are no more than cumbersome red tape.

After all, we know that Liam Fox, the Secretary of State for International Trade – the very Minister who is responsible for negotiating our trade agreements as we exit the European Union – is on record as having said that it is “too difficult” to fire staff. MPs must not allow the downgrading of workers’ rights to be an unfortunate side-effect of the Government’s negotiations.

In July, on the steps of Downing Street, the Prime Minister referred to those who have a job but do not always have job security. For millions of agency workers in the care sector, retail, security or factory work, the agency workers legislation ensures that they have access ​to the same wages and holiday entitlements as permanent workers.

That is progressive legislation, which recognises the changing needs of an increasingly “flexible” workforce, and we should not hesitate to secure our own domestic laws to support those workers.

We have been reassured by the Government that Brexit will not undermine workers’ rights. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (David Davis) wrote that, in his view, it is “not employment regulation 
that stultifies economic growth”.

If that is the case, there should be no barriers to the Government positively reviewing which elements of UK employment law will be without any foundations after leaving Europe unless appropriate alternatives are implemented, and then implementing them. Given that the UK has one of the most lightly-regulated workforces in the OECD, it is right the Government should uphold these minimum standards.

Further, much UK employment law originating from the EU has become a basic expectation. The protection afforded to workers is woven into the fabric of the employment relationship – for example, no discrimination against part-time or fixed-term workers and the right to rest breaks, paid holiday and leave for working parents. All those things are now standard; we should not be going backwards.

If we take a closer look at TUPE – the transfer of undertakings, protection of employees – it is clear the intention is to benefit workers. It means that if someone’s employer contracts out their job role to another organisation, or there is a company takeover, they can expect certain minimum guarantees.

They can expect that there will be a period of consultation. They can expect that there will be reasonable sharing of information. They can expect that any proposed changes to structures, salaries or redundancies will be discussed. If they are transferred to the new employer, their salary, holiday and sick leave will all be protected, as will their pension, unless another agreement has been made.

Importantly, rights to representation and recognition of trade unions also transfer, providing certainty and reassurance to affected employees.

We should accept a reality here. TUPE and other EU-derived legislation is not perfect. As we have seen with other legislation such as maternity and paternity leave, our Parliament can make the choice to offer more than the minimum requirements of legislation. But in this instance, it has not.

Having taken numerous groups of employees through TUPE transfers as a Unison officer, I recognise the weaknesses within the law, but that is all the more reason to be concerned about what would happen if TUPE were not there to act as a check and balance.​

Before TUPE, employers were able to make the staff of a transferring unit redundant regardless of whether their job would exist within the new undertaking. Very often, those same staff would have to go through a recruitment process to secure their previous jobs, but often on lower wages, with worse pensions, fewer holidays and increased responsibilities.

I accept that the British public voted for Brexit, but they did not vote for more insecure contracts, less safe workplaces or anything less than they currently have by way of protection in their jobs.

Melanie Onn is the Labour MP for Grimsby who spoke in a Parliamentary debate. This is an edited version.