- Experts say government’s Strikes Bill will make Britain an international “outlier” on union laws
- Unions will be forced to “undermine” their own strikes, lawyers say
Leading employment lawyers have warned that government’s new Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill will give ministers “unfettered power” to restrict the right to strike.
In a joint statement, the legal specialists say the new legislation will make Britain “an outlier” on strike laws compared to other European and Western democracies.
Those adding their names to the statement include:
- Alan Bogg, Professor of Labour Law, University of Bristol
- Keith Ewing, Professor of Public Law, King’s College London
- Ruth Dukes, Professor of Labour Law, University of Glasgow
Highlighting the new sweeping powers the Bill will give to ministers, the lawyers say:
“The legislation gives a Secretary of State a largely unfettered power to determine what a minimum level of service should be in a particular service, and consequently the circumstances in which and the extent to which workers in these sectors can lawfully exercise their freedom to strike.”
Highlighting how Britain risks becoming an international outlier on strike laws, the lawyers say:
“The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill would place an unacceptable restriction on a worker’s right to take strike action to defend their terms and conditions of employment. It adds to an existing body of highly restrictive laws on strikes, including the Trade Union Act 2016.
“It would make Great Britain an outlier among comparable countries. If ministers are keen to learn from overseas, a more promising place to start would be the creation of a culture of social dialogue and balanced cooperation through the introduction of sector-wide collective bargaining, together with the clear legal recognition of a positive right to strike.”
Highlighting the strain the Bill will put on industrial relations, the lawyers say:
“Trade unions will be required by an employer acting with the authority of the state to take steps actively to undermine its own strike, for which its members will have voted in a ballot with high thresholds of support. Such an obligation is unprecedented in British law, and it places trade unions in an intolerable conflict with their own members.
“The legislation also removes significant protections for individual workers exposing them to the risk of dismissal and victimisation. It will do nothing to resolve the current spate of industrial action, which will be settled by negotiation and agreement, rather than by the introduction of even tighter restrictions on trade unions.”
The TUC has accused the government of ducking scrutiny over the Bill.
If passed, the Strikes Bill will mean that when workers democratically and lawfully vote to strike they can be forced to work and sacked if they don’t comply.
The Bill gives ministers power to impose new minimum service levels through regulation.
But consultations on how these regulations will work in specific services have not been completed, and parliamentarians have been given few details on how minimum service levels are intended to operate.
The TUC says the new legislation will “do nothing” to solve the current disputes across the public sector, and “only make matters worse”.
Alan Bogg, Professor of Labour Law at the University of Bristol said: “This Bill would risk leaving Britain an international outlier in its restrictive laws on trade unions.
“When combined with existing legislation, these proposals constitute a further departure from established norms and international treaty obligations.
“Rather than bringing Britain into line with other European countries, it deviates significantly from the legal traditions of our neighbours where the right to strike is often given explicit constitutional protection.”
Ruth Dukes, Professor of Labour Law at the University of Glasgow said: “These minimum service requirements will do nothing to help workers and employers reach agreement.
“But they might well prolong and inflame disputes.”
Commenting on the lawyers’ letter, TUC General Secretary Paul Nowak said: “This is a damning assessment of the government’s Strikes Bill. Make no mistake – these new laws are a naked power grab that will allow ministers to severely restrict the right to strike.
“This spiteful legislation would mean that when workers democratically vote to strike, they can be forced to work and sacked if they don’t comply.
“Compulsory work notices during strikes will place a huge strain on employer and union relations and will do nothing to help resolve disputes.
“If this nasty legislation gets on to the statute book, the TUC will fight it all the way – including through the courts.
“The Conservatives cannot legislate away worker dissatisfaction.”
The full statement reads:
We the undersigned are specialists in employment law.
Between us we have decades of experience as academics and practitioners in analysing the existing statutory regime for industrial action and the wider industrial relations landscape in Great Britain and internationally.
In our view the Strikes Bill (Minimum Service Levels) Act would place an unacceptable restriction on a worker’s right to take strike action to defend their terms and conditions of employment. It adds to an existing body of highly restrictive laws on strikes, including the Trade Union Act 2016. The cumulative effects of this legislation would place the UK well outside the mainstream of industrial relations in comparable countries.
The right to strike is guaranteed in international law by a succession of important treaties. These include the Council of Europe’s Social Charter of 1961; and the UN’s International Covenant on economic, social and cultural rights of 1966. It has also been recognised as a human right by the International Labour Organisation, and by the European Court of Human Rights. Our obligation to respect ILO conventions and the Social Charter was reinforced by the 2020 Trade and Cooperation Treaty with the European Union.
In Great Britain the right to strike is already heavily limited. The statutory regime places significant requirements on trade unions contemplating industrial action including the need to conduct a postal ballot under highly complex rules, the need to clear high thresholds of support (even higher in ‘important public services’), and to give 14 days’ notice of action.
The Strikes Bill as drafted would remove none of these requirements while placing a hugely onerous new set of requirements on unions and union members.
The legislation gives a Secretary of State a largely unfettered power to determine what a minimum level of service should be in a particular service, and consequently the circumstances in which and the extent to which workers in these sectors can lawfully exercise their freedom to strike. If a strike takes place in these services, an employer will have the power to issue a work notice effectively to requisition workers during the strike.
Trade unions will then be under a duty to take “reasonable steps” to ensure that workers comply with the work notice. Trade unions will thus be required by an employer acting with the authority of the state to take steps actively to undermine its own strike, for which its members will have voted in a ballot with high thresholds of support. Such an obligation is unprecedented in British law, and it places trade unions in an intolerable conflict with their own members.
The legislation also removes significant protections for individual workers exposing them to the risk of dismissal and victimisation. It will do nothing to resolve the current spate of industrial action, which will be settled by negotiation and agreement, rather than by the introduction of even tighter restrictions on trade unions.
The proposed minimum service legislation constitutes a further departure from established norms and treaty obligations. It would make Great Britain an outlier among comparable countries. If ministers are keen to learn from overseas, a more promising place to start would be the creation of a culture of social dialogue and balanced cooperation through the introduction of sector-wide collective bargaining, together with the clear legal recognition of a positive right to strike.
Professor Alan Bogg, Professor of Labour Law, University of Bristol
Professor Nicola Countouris, Director of the Research Department, European Trade Union Institute (ETUI) and Professor in Labour Law and European Law, University College London
Professor Ruth Dukes, Professor of Labour Law, University of Glasgow
Professor Keith Ewing, Professor of Public Law, King’s College London
Professor Lydia Hayes, Professor of Labour Rights, University of Liverpool
Dr Ioannis Katsaroumpas, Lecturer in Employment Law, University of Sussex
Professor Aristea Koukiadaki, Professor of Labour Law and Industrial Relations, Head of The University of Manchester Law School
Professor Virginia Mantouvalou, Professor of Human Rights and Labour Law, University College London
Dr Ewan McGaughey, Reader in Law, King’s College London
Professor Tonia Novitz, Professor of Labour Law, University of Bristol
24
0
20
