Tag: Strikes Bill

TUC: We will defend the right to strike at all costs

‘Make no mistake – this is one of the most pernicious pieces of union-bashing legislation you will ever see’

The ongoing Conservative Party psycho-drama has dominated the headlines over the last few weeks (writes TUC General Secretary PAUL NOWAK).

While it has been good to see Boris Johnson finally held accountable, it’s meant that many important issues have slipped under the radar.

The Strikes Bill returns to parliament today (23 June). It won’t get anywhere near the coverage of the vote on the Privileges Committee report, but it should.

Make no mistake – this is one of the most pernicious pieces of union-bashing legislation you will ever see.

And the TUC is by no means alone in saying this.

Over the weekend the UN workers’ rights watchdog, the ILO, demanded that the UK bring trade union rights into line with international law.

In a rare intervention, it instructed UK ministers to “seek technical assistance” from the body and to report back to the ILO in September.

The last time the ILO issued this type of rebuke to the UK was in 1995.

Litany of critics

The spiteful legislation has faced a barrage of criticism from employers, civil liberties organisations, the joint committee on human rights, House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, race and gender equalities groups, employment rights lawyers, politicians around the world – as well as a whole host of other organisations.

It is no surprise that this Bill has upset and enraged so many.

The UK already has the most restrictive anti-strikes legislation in Western Europe. And these reforms will take the country in an even more draconian direction.

That would mean that when workers lawfully vote to strike in health, education, fire, transport, border security and nuclear decommissioning, they could be forced to attend work – and sacked if they don’t comply. 

As the TUC has repeatedly warned the Strikes Bill is undemocratic, unworkable and almost certainly illegal.

Far from preventing strikes, the Bill will poison industrial relations and escalate disputes.

And for what? So Rishi Sunak can throw some red meat to his backbenchers and look tough to his ungovernable party.

Next steps

So where do we go from here?

The Strikes Bill is back in the Commons after a series of bruising defeats in the Lords.

The government will whip its MPs to vote down much-needed amendments as they try and fast-track the legislation onto the statute books.

Our challenge remains the same. Unions will continue to fight the Bill at every stage and will not rest until these poisonous reforms are defeated, and if passed into law, repealed by the next Labour government.

Last summer, ministers changed the law to allow agencies to supply employers with workers to fill in for those on strike. Unions are currently challenging the change in courts – with a judgment expected soon.

The right to strike is a fundamental British liberty that is vital for the balance of power in the workplace.

We must defend it at all costs. And as I told a TUC rally last month, we are also very clear that we will stand by any worker who exercises their fundamental right to strike.

Call to scrap ‘spiteful’ Strikes Bill

The TUC has warned that the right to strike of 1 in 5 workers in Britain is at risk because of the UK Government’s Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill. 

New analysis published by the union body yesterday shows that 5.5 million workers in England, Scotland and Wales could be affected by the legislation. Workers in Northern Ireland aren’t subject to the Bill. 

Those 5.5 million workers have their right to strike threatened because – if passed unamended – the Bill will mean that when workers lawfully vote to strike in health, education, fire, transport, border security and nuclear decommissioning, they could be forced to attend work – and sacked if they don’t comply.   

The legislation continues to make it way through parliament, and had a third reading in the House of Lords yesterday. 

The Bill recently suffered heavy defeats in the Lords, as all the opposition amendments laid were voted through, including an amendment to stop frontline workers getting sacked for exercising their right to strike. 

Huge numbers of British workers 

The TUC says the Conservative government must drop the Strikes Bill in its entirety and protect the right to strike. 

And the EHRC recently warned that the legislation could see all striking workers in affected sectors losing their unfair dismissal protection as whole strikes could be deemed illegal. 

The TUC says the Bill should provoke “serious opposition from UK politicians” as it continues its passage through parliament, given the huge numbers set to lose their right to strike.  

The union body says the UK government has failed to come clean about the draconian nature of the Bill – and has accused ministers of “shortcutting” normal scrutiny procedures by “ramming” the Bill through the parliament.   

The Bill will give ministers the power to impose new minimum service levels through regulation.   

But MPs have been given few details on how minimum service levels are intended to operate.  

The House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recently criticised the Bill for giving blanket powers to UK ministers while providing virtually no detail. 

The Bill has faced a barrage of criticism from civil liberties organisations, the joint committee on human rights, House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, race and gender equalities groups, employment rights lawyers, politicians around the world – and a whole host of other organisations. 

TUC General Secretary Paul Nowak said: “This Conservative government is threatening the right to strike of as many as one in five workers up and down the country. 

“This is a spiteful Bill. No one should be sacked for trying to win a better deal at work. 

“But this draconian legislation would mean that when workers democratically vote to strike, they could be forced to work and sacked if they don’t comply.    

“It’s undemocratic, it’s unworkable and it’s very likely illegal.  

“Ministers have tried to keep the public in the dark about the true nature of this Bill.  

“They are ramming it through– shortcutting normal parliamentary procedures and ducking scrutiny. And they are giving themselves the power to snatch away the right to strike of five and a half million workers. 

“With inflation still running at over 10%, the last thing workers need is for ministers to make it harder to secure better pay and conditions.  

“It’s time for ministers to protect the right to strike and ditch this Bill for good.” 

Strikes Bill fails to meet human rights obligations – JCHR report

UK Government plans to impose minimum service levels on public services during strike action are likely to be incompatible with human rights law in their current form, the Joint Committee on Human Rights has found.

In a report published following legislative scrutiny of the Strikes (Minimum Service Level) Bill, the Committee finds that reforms that would make it easier to sack striking workers and leave unions at risk of million-pound fines do not appear to be justified and need to be reconsidered. The Committee finds that it would be possible to introduce minimum service levels in some sectors in a way that is more likely to be compliant with human rights law.

While the European Convention on Human Rights does not include a ‘right to strike’, Article 11 which guarantees freedom of association has been interpreted to cover the taking of strike action. This requires that any restrictions on strike action must be “in accordance with the law”, which requires its consequences to be foreseeable to those affected. Changes to the law must also meet a “pressing social need” and be proportionate to the aim being pursued.

The Joint Committee finds that the Government’s Bill risks failing to meet these benchmarks in its current form. Ahead of the Committee Stage in the House of Lords on 9 March, it has called on the Government to reconsider the legislation and ensure it meets the UK’s human rights obligations. The draft report includes five proposed amendments to the Bill intended to rectify key concerns.

The Government brought forward the Strikes Bill in response to growing industrial unrest and strikes in a number of sectors, including transport, health and education. It has argued that legislation is needed to provide greater protection to the lives and livelihoods of those that may be disrupted by industrial action in key public services.

The Bill would allow ministers to set minimum service levels on public and private services subject to strike action. The employer would then be given the power to issue a ’work notice’ to a trade union, identifying who will be required to work and the work needed to meet the minimum service level.

Individual employees who failed to comply with a work notice would lose legal protections against dismissal. Trade unions who failed to take steps to ensure notices were complied with could be required to pay damages of up to £1 million.

The Joint Committee warns that the Government has not made a compelling case that such measures are necessary and finds that the Bill as drafted contains inadequate protection against arbitrary use and is unclear.

Under the European Convention on Human Rights, restrictions on strikes must meet a ‘pressing social need’. However, the Government has not proven that existing strike laws and voluntary minimum service levels are insufficient across all the sectors identified in the Bill.

Claims that strike action in the sectors named in the Bill has caused significant and disproportionate damage to the public and wider economy have not been backed up with sufficient evidence, with the Government providing supporting data for the costs of previous transport strikes only.

Measures that interfere with the right to free association must be proportionate. This is more likely to be achieved if minimum service levels are established though negotiation and disputes resolved through independent arbitration. The Government has previously accepted that such an approach would work, in the Transport Strikes Bill introduced in October. The Bill, which would abandon this in favour of the Secretary of State imposing minimum service levels by regulations, risks failing to meet the requirement of proportionality.

Penalties for employees and unions who don’t meet the Bill’s requirements are high and potentially disproportionate, the Joint Committee finds. It calls on the Government to reconsider whether less severe measures would be more appropriate, particularly where a strike does not involve essential services. Existing penalties, such as loss of pay or suspension would be more appropriate in such cases.

The Bill has insufficient clarity in several key areas, the Joint Committee finds. Trade unions would be required to take ‘reasonable steps’ to ensure their members comply with a work notice, however the Bill does not provide sufficient detail to ensure they will know when this duty has or has not been met.

The definitions of the services in respect of which minimum service levels could be imposed are currently too vague, meaning that ‘education services’ could include private tutors and ‘transport services’ private taxi drivers. 

Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Joanna Cherry KC MP said: “The Strikes Bill will be debated in the House of Lords this Thursday and needs amending to resolve some of the deep flaws it has.

“If this proposed legislation becomes law in its current form, ministers would have the power to set minimum service levels that would leave striking workers at risk of the sack if they are not met, and unions liable to million-pound fines. Yet, the Government has not proven that such draconian measures are needed or that the current framework is inadequate.

“Heavy-handed sanctions are compounded by vague rules that would leave striking workers and unions in confusion as to whether they had been met or not. The sectors included in the Bill are also ill-defined, risking over-reach into areas only tangentially linked to the maintenance of vital public services. This means the Bill, in our view, is likely to be incompatible with human rights law which provides a right to association and with it, protection for strike action.

“The Government needs to think again and come back with legislation that better respects the protections guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights.”

strikes-billDownload