U.K. press law splits legislators

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33917, 9 August 1975, Page 15

U.K. press law splits legislators

(By .

ARTHUR GAVSHON,

of the Associated Press, through N.Z.P.A.)

LONDON. August 8. I A British Government! move to give unions the right to form closed shops in the communications industry has raised questions about the future of press freedom in Britain. The measure has provoked a tussle between the House of Commons and the House; of Lords. It has also prompted charges from editors that militant union leaders who may work for, or contribute articles to. a newspaper could, in effect, control its news and editorial comment. The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr Michael Foot), once a journalist himself. insists that the closedshop measure will strengthen rather than threaten press freedom. He emphasises that the proposed law does not stipulate) closed shops in al! industries! or newspaper offices. Anyway, Mr Foot says,' the rights of unions to formj closed shops have long been' recognised.

| Mr Foot introduced last; year the Trade Union and 'Labour Relations Amend-' ! i ment Bill, which contains I ■the controversial provisions.! Jit passed through the Com-! imons and went to the Lords,' where peers have certain' powers of revision and amendment. The troubles arose in the! . Upper House, where the bill: ' emerged with amendments 'designed to protect news-! 'paper editors from interference by journalists’ - unions. Mr Foot’s bill, in essence, 1 denies workers the right to ; sue for unfair dismissal if ’ they are fired at the request of a union with a closed . shop. It also obliges all workers in a plant or office to join a closed-shop union and to make sure they are not expelled from it if they want to hold their jobs. The bill does not create or I 'enforce closed shops, which; come into being only if: workers and employers' agree, and it does not singlej . out any industry in its ap,'plication. 1 Difficulties that have arisen)

j for journalists result ' from the special nature of i : their profession and from j the possibility that their ; ! union, if controlled by far- ; left militants, could result 'in all kinds of new curbs : and interference with free- i dom of expression. Some examples of possible i J restrictions are: A closed shop in a news- ; paper office would compel Jthe editor to join the union, i In a strike that editor would i ■)be bound to put down his pen. In another context it might force him to hire only 1 union members, even when he would prefer another sort ; . of recruit. Therefore, editors j have been pressing for a clause in the bill spelling < out the right “not to belong” to a closed shop. A reporter covering industrial relations might, if he 1 were too critical of a dispute, find himself thrown lout Contributors to news- ' papers who do not belong to;' the journalisms’ union might;! find access to the press J (closed, or at least limited. Certain peers in the House ; of Lords argued to amend : iMr Foot's b>v to protect the'l

interests of editors and; newspaper publishers. They were led by Lord Goodman, a lawyer who presides over the Newspaper i Publishers’ Association, and put in a series of amendments providing: For the right of editors' not to belong to the unioh. : For the right of editors to) publish any article commis-i sioned from an outsider who. does not belong to the; union. For the right of journalists to join any professional body of their choice, mean- < ing, in practice, either the National Union of Journalists or the less militant, ' more conservative Institute ' of Journalists. For the right of journalists to be free from the threat of arbitrary expulsion t from their union. A somewhat softer ap-i 1 proach was proposed by an-' other peer, Lord Houghton, ii who set out to embody these) safeguards in a “Code of(Practice on Freedom of the; Press.” This code sought to in-1 corporate the safeguards' into a charter, to be agreed: 'by delegates of the journai-i'

lists and the employers, and' which would be referred to; in the law as’ the conditioning factor and guide in disputes. Mr Foot came out flatly against the Goodman version, but said he recognised (“there are special problems' 'of editorial freedon” which! Ihave to be resolved in hisj ! legislation. In Mr Foofk view, Lord (Goodman’s amendments "would apply a special Industrial Relations Act solution exclusively to one industry.” Journalists would be made the objects of “a specially devised series of rules, curtailing their capacity to resort to industrial action and intervening exceptionally in the way they control their union membership.” The Houghton version, on! (the other hand, seemed to. (Mr Foot “An admirable ■ document.” Leaders of the National' (Union of Journalists adopted' the Houghton code as a con-1 cept to be pursued and' 'applied. But their decision 1 was toppled when the union met in annual convention in' ithe Spring. '