Anti union laws

The Joint Committee looked at observations of the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to see if the UN’s criticisms of UK laws – made in 1997 and again in 2002 – where justified. Organisations were invited to submit evidence to the Committee and RMT joined the Institute of Employment Rights and a number of other unions to provide evidence of the restrictive nature of UK laws. Anti-union laws So what’s wrong with UK laws? There are two main problems. The first relates to the many restrictions placed on unions before they can lawfully support their members. The second relates to the threat of dismissal facing individual strikers. In the UK there is no constitutional right to strike for individual workers or any legal right for unions to organise strike action. The law offers certain immunities for unions from prosecution, but only if they walk the tightrope of anti-trade union laws, which dictate when a strike can be considered “lawful”. The RMT submission to the Committee identified many of the restrictions placed on unions, referring amongst other things to: “the hideous complexity of the law on the definition of a trade dispute, the difficulties involved in the conduct of industrial action ballots, the rigours of the obligations to serve notices and the ease with which injunctions are granted against unions” Each and every aspect of the Tory inspired anti-trade union laws that remain a part of the UK framework of law, add another hurdle over which unions have to jump before they can support the legitimate interests of their members. But RMT’s main complaint to the Committee was the fact that in the UK workers who take industrial action can be sacked for breaching their contract of employment. In other countries workers have a specific right to strike and their contracts are suspended during strike activity. In the UK, workers are “free” to strike but have no constitutional right to withdraw their labour. True, the 1999 Employment Relations Act offered protection against strikers for the first eight weeks of an official dispute. And in July last year the government agreed to increase that protection to 12 weeks as part of the Warwick Agreement. But as long ago as 2002 the UN pointed out that such limited protection was not enough to guarantee workers their fundamental right to withdraw their labour. In its observations on UK laws the UN Committee said: “Employees participating in a lawful strike should not be regarded as having committed a breach of contract”. Legislation for rights And in relation to the 8-week rule, the UN Committee said: “The Committee does not find satisfactory the proposal to enable employees who go on strike to have a remedy before a Tribunal for unfair dismissal”. The Committee recommended that: “the right to strike be established in legislation and that strike action no longer entail the loss of employment”. RMT agrees, as did the UK Joint Committee. Having considered the informed evidence provided by the Institute, RMT, CWU, TGWU and UNISON the Joint Committee agreed that the UN was justified in its complaint against the UK and that the Government should review the legislation in light of the criticisms made. A small but significant victory. G The Institute of Employment Right’s submission to the JCHR can be downloaded from www.ier.org.uk 20 IT’S OFFICIAL! UK laws place undue restrictions on the right to strike according to recent report by the UK’s Joint Committee on Human Rights. UK strike laws too restrictive There is no legal right for unions to organise strike action in the UK