Defending the right to strike

The whole trade union movement stands ready to defend workers’ fundamental right to strike, writes TUC’s KATIE STILL.

The right to strike is a fundamental British liberty

Exercising the right to strike when negotiations break down is a fundamental British liberty. It’s not one that workers ever use lightly.

Going on strike in the UK today means getting past tough legal restrictions, including winning a ballot conducted by post. It also means losing pay for the days you’re on strike.

But when employers won’t negotiate, exercising the right to strike can be the only way to bring them back to the table. 

But it’s under attack from a Tory government that’s run out of ideas

The strikes this winter are the symptom of a broken economy. We’ve experienced the longest pay squeeze since Napoleonic times, with workers losing out on £20,000 worth of wages due to pay not keeping up with prices since 2008. And exploitative bosses like those at P&O Ferries are getting away with treating their workers like disposable labour.

But rather than getting round the table to negotiate a fair resolution of disputes, and setting out a plan to get pay rising, ministers are making vague threats to the right to strike.

In October government attacked transport workers through a proposed law mandating minimum service levels – but it’s not clear whether this has now been dumped. And ministers keep telling the media that they are proposing “tough” new laws – but they haven’t published any proposals.

The UK already has some of the most restrictive trade union laws in the world – but workers have been pushed into action by a government and employers that won’t listen. You can’t legislate away the depth of anger workers feel about how they’ve been treated.

The trade union movement stands ready to defend the right to strike

Working people and their trade unions want to negotiate a fair resolution to the current disputes. Ministers and employers should talk to unions about our demands for better pay and fairer working conditions. That’s our priority.

But if ministers want to use workers as a political football, the whole trade union movement will be united in defending the right to strike.

And make no mistake: we will fight hard. Any new restrictions are likely to be in breach of the UK’s commitments under international law. Ministers don’t have a mandate for new curbs on the right to strike from the manifesto they were elected on.

Working people across the country just want a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. It’s time for a government that puts them first.

Last week the High Court granted permission for a legal challenge – brought by eleven trade unions, coordinated by the TUC and represented by Thompsons Solicitors LLP – to protect the right to strike.

The unions – ASLEF, BFAWU, FDA, GMB, NEU, NUJ, POA, PCS, RMT, Unite and Usdaw – have taken the case against the government’s new regulations which allow agency workers to fill in for striking workers.

The challenge will be heard along with separate legal cases launched by TUC-affiliated unions UNISON and NASUWT against the government’s agency worker regulations, which have also been given the green light by the High Court. A hearing will be held from late March onwards. 

The unions come from a wide range of sectors and represent millions of workers in the UK.

The TUC says the move is a “major blow” to government attempts to undermine workers’ right to strike for better pay and conditions.

With industrial action taking place across the economy after years of declining real pay and attacks on working conditions, reports suggest the government is considering new ways to restrict workers’ right to strike.

In addition to the agency worker regulations brought in last summer, ministers are already pushing through legislation on minimum service levels in transport – with the bill due for its second reading in the new year.

In threatening the right to strike, the TUC has accused the government of attacking a fundamental British liberty and making it harder for working people to bargain for better pay and conditions in the middle of a cost of living crisis.

Unlawful agency worker regulations                                                     

The unions argue that the regulations are unlawful because:

  • The then Secretary of State for business failed to consult unions, as required by the Employment Agencies Act 1973.
  • They violate fundamental trade union rights protected by Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The change has been heavily criticised by unions, agency employers, and parliamentarians.

The TUC has warned these new laws will worsen industrial disputes, undermine the fundamental right to strike and could endanger public safety if inexperienced agency staff are required to fill safety critical roles.

The Recruitment and Employment Confederation (REC), which represents suppliers of agency workers, described the proposals as “unworkable”.

The Lords Committee charged with scrutinising the legislation said “the lack of robust evidence and the expected limited net benefit raise questions as to the practical effectiveness and benefit” of the new laws.

The TUC recently reported the UK government to the UN workers’ rights watchdog, the International Labour Organization (ILO), over the recent spate of anti-union and anti-worker legislation and proposals, including the government’s agency worker regulations, which it says are in breach of international law.

TUC General Secretary Frances O’Grady said: “The right to strike is a fundamental British liberty. But this government seems hellbent on attacking it at every opportunity.

“Threatening this right tilts the balance of power too far towards employers. It means workers can’t stand up for decent services and safety at work – or defend their jobs and pay.

“With inflation above an eyewatering 11%, ministers are shamelessly falling over themselves to find new ways to make it harder for working people to bargain for better pay and conditions.

“And these attacks on the right to strike are likely illegal. Ministers failed to consult with unions, as the law requires. And restricting the freedom to strike is a breach of international law.

“That’s why unions are coming together to challenge this change in the courts.

“Working people are suffering the longest and harshest wage squeeze in modern history. They need stronger legal protections and more power in the workplace to defend their living standards – not less.”

Richard Arthur, Head of Trade Union Law at Thompsons Solicitors, which represents the TUC-coordinated unions, said: “This is a timely reminder that the government is not above the law when it tries to restrict the rights of working people to take industrial action.

“The Court has agreed with the trade unions that the government’s decision-making should be scrutinised against UK and international legal standards at a hearing to take place from late March onwards.”

Fighting to protect the right to strike

Eleven trade unions, coordinated by the TUC and represented by Thompsons Solicitors LLP, have began legal proceedings to protect the right to strike.

The unions – ASLEF, BFAWU, FDA, GMB, NEU, NUJ, POA, PCS, RMT, Unite and Usdaw – have taken the case against the UK government’s new regulations which allow agency workers to fill in for striking workers and break strikes.

The unions come from a wide range of sectors and represent millions of workers in the UK.

The unions argue that the regulations are unlawful because:

  • The then Secretary of State for business failed to consult unions, as required by the Employment Agencies Act 1973.
  • They violate fundamental trade union rights protected by Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

The change has been heavily criticised by unions, agency employers, and parliamentarians.

The TUC has warned these new laws will worsen industrial disputes, undermine the fundamental right to strike and could endanger public safety if agency staff are required to fill safety critical roles but haven’t been fully trained. 

The Recruitment and Employment Confederation (REC), which represents suppliers of agency workers, described the proposals as “unworkable”.

The Lords Committee charged with scrutinising the legislation said “the lack of robust evidence and the expected limited net benefit raise questions as to the practical effectiveness and benefit” of the new laws.

The TUC also recently reported the UK government to the UN workers’ rights watchdog, the International Labour Organization (ILO), over the recent spate of anti-union and anti-worker legislation and proposals, including the government’s agency worker regulations, which it says are in breach of international law. 

TUC affiliated unions UNISON and NASUWT are also launching separate individual legal cases against the government’s agency worker regulations.

TUC General Secretary Frances O’Grady said: “The right to strike is a fundamental British liberty. But the government is attacking it in broad daylight.

“Threatening this right tilts the balance of power too far towards employers. It means workers can’t stand up for decent services and safety at work – or defend their jobs and pay.

 “Ministers failed to consult with unions, as the law requires. And restricting the freedom to strike is a breach of international law.

 “That’s why unions are coming together to challenge this change in the courts.

 “Workers need stronger legal protections and more power in the workplace to defend their living standards – not less.”

Richard Arthur, Head of Trade Union Law at Thompsons Solicitors LLP, said: “The right to strike is respected and protected by international law including the Conventions of the ILO, an agency of the United Nations, and the European Convention on Human Rights.

“The Conservative government should face up to its legal obligations under both domestic and international law, instead of forever trying to undermine the internationally recognised right to strike.”

The TUC’s annual Congress has been rescheduled for 18-20 October 2022 following the death of Queen Elizabeth. The three-day event will take place at the Brighton Centre.

UK smartphone owners could be entitled to a £480 million payout

Around 29 million Britons could be entitled to a payout after being overcharged for their smartphones, if a landmark claim by consumer champion Which? is successful.

According to Which?, consumers could be owed a collective £482.5 million in damages from multi billion-dollar tech giant Qualcomm.

Which? believes Qualcomm has breached UK competition law by taking advantage of its dominance in the patent-licensing and chipset markets.  The result is that it is able to charge manufacturers like Apple and Samsung inflated fees for technology licences, which have then been passed on to consumers in the form of higher smartphone prices.  

Which? is seeking damages for all affected Apple and Samsung smartphones purchased since 1st October 2015. 

It estimates that individual consumers could be due up to £30 depending on the number and type of smartphones purchased during that period, although it is expected at this stage that most consumers would receive around £17.

Qualcomm has already been found liable by regulators and courts around the world for similar anticompetitive behaviour and Which? is urging Qualcomm to settle this claim without the need for litigation by offering consumers their money back. 

Which?’s legal action could help millions of consumers get redress for Qualcomm’s anticompetitive abuse. This is possible because of the opt-out collective action regime that was introduced by the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

It has been near impossible for individual consumers to take on big companies like Qualcomm in the past, but the collective regime opened the door for Which? to represent consumers where large numbers of people have been harmed by anticompetitive conduct.

This action is vital to obtain redress for consumers and to send a clear message to powerful companies like Qualcomm, that if they engage in harmful, manipulative practices, Which? stands ready to take action.

Anabel Hoult, CEO of Which?, said: “We believe Qualcomm’s practices are anticompetitive and have so far taken around £480 million from UK consumers’ pockets – this needs to stop. We are sending a clear warning that if companies like Qualcomm indulge in manipulative practices which harm consumers, Which? is prepared to take action. 

“If Qualcomm has abused its market power it must be held to account. Without Which? bringing this claim on behalf of millions of affected UK consumers, it would simply not be realistic for people to seek damages from the company on an individual basis – that’s why it’s so important that consumers can come together and claim the redress they are entitled to.”

Visit www.smartphoneclaim.co.uk to find out more about the claim and sign up for campaign updates.