Speech in the CAS on the Trade Union Act

Trade Union Act – CAS hearings

ILO Conference 2016

Speech in the CAS on the Trade Union Act

Monday 6 June 2016

TUC speaks out against the Trade Union Act

As part of the Committee on the Application of Standards’ consideration of the UK Trade Union Act 2016, Amanda Brown, NUT Assistant General Secretary andUK worker delegate to the Committee made the following speech.

The Trade Union Act finished its legislative process last month and the government is now free to bring its provisions into effect at any time. Even though the government was pressured into making concessions in Parliament, the new Act still marks a high point of interference in labour rights to organise in the UK which hits to the heart of the right to freedom of association.

The Act introduces far-reaching new restrictions on trade union activities. The UK has a statutory agency whose purpose is to regulate trade unions. This, the Certification Officer, is now given further wide-ranging powers to investigate union democratic affairs, and to access confidential records, including the names and addresses of union members. To our knowledge no such agency exists in any other part of Europe or the democratic world. And in the future unions will even be required to fund this regulator, who regulates them.

Unions’ freedom to make decisions on how to use their funds is also to be curtailed – more than any other body, with any spending on certain political activities, or donations to political parties, having to meet a set of legal requirements. The Act also empowers the government to restrict the ability of public sector unions to represent our members at work. There are new restrictions on picketing, with unions being required to appoint picket supervisors whose contact details must be given to the police. These changes will expose unions to an increased risk of legal challenge by employers and to punitive financial penalties. A government which says it loathes red tape, has been keen to entangle unions in kilometres of it.

The Act has been extremely controversial from the start. It is highly divisive and has prompted a loud body of outrage and opposition. Politicians from all major parties have spoken publicly of their worries.

Organisations such as Liberty, Amnesty International and the UN recognised human rights institution, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, have criticised the Bill, with Liberty telling the House of Commons that the proposals in the Bill would absolutely render the right to strike illusory.

The devolved Scottish and Welsh governments both publicly opposed the Bill. The Scottish Parliament was concerned at the impact of the Act on industrial relations in Scotland, and overwhelmingly passed a motion stating that it (I quote) ‘opposes and condemns the Bill believing that it restricts fundamental rights of workers to organise and bargain collectively and if necessary to withdraw labour.“

Perhaps the most infamous provisions are the high voting thresholds. The Act introduces a new requirement for a 50% turnout. The government’s assessment is that 45 % of ballots in the last 5 years would not have been valid under this rule. The leading human resources body - the CIPD – has called the thresholds ‘outdated’, pointing out that in the last 20 years, the number of work days of strike action has actually fallen by more than 90%.

But clearly the Government feels that UK workers are still too free to organise effectively. In parts of the public sector that it calls ‘important public services’, it will additionally require unions to meet a 40% yes vote, of all those entitled to vote. It treats all those who abstain or do not vote as a vote against, offending basic democratic principles. Putting the two requirements together, a 50% turnout on a ballot would require 80% of voters, to vote yes.

As the Committee of Experts have indicated, This law places a much broader restriction to freedom of association than is provided for in ILO jurisprudence, a restriction that is clearly unnecessary, unjustified and disproportionate, and provides no compensatory guarantees. There will be disproportionate gender impact with an estimated 73% of the workers in these sectors being women.

The Government’s justification for including the education and transport sectors has not been public safety and security, but inconvenience. The Secretary of State has said that these sectors were included because of the disruption that stoppages in those areas can cause. So in the Government’s view, the fundamental right to organise, to withdraw labour as a last resort, can be overridden by its wish to prevent disruption. In another debate, the Minister said that the thresholds were about making sure strikes can go ahead only when there is a “reasonable” level of support. Chair, I believe we would all struggle to think of any other area in which a requirement for up to 80% support is reasonable, least of all when we are talking of fundamental democratic rights.

I should remind this Committee that the process for industrial action is already a highly regulated and lengthy process. Employers must have 7 days’ notice of the intention to ballot, must see a copy of the ballot paper, be notified of the result, and be given 7 days’ notice of the intention to take any action. Further the ballot itself cannot be at the workplace or by show of hands, it must be by secret postal ballot sent to members’ home addresses. It must include specified wording and include a warning, that a vote to take action will put workers in breach of contract. The Act not only adds further complex procedural requirements, including a doubling of the length of notice period of action, and extensive additional information to be included on the voting paper, it also provides that a ballot for action will expire after 6 months so must be repeated if the dispute has not been resolved.

Chair we have been calling for this postal ballot process to be simplified and modernised to allow for electronic voting. In fact the House of Lords, voted by a massive majority to require the Government to hold an independent review so that there could be a rollout of a secure method of electronic voting. The government pushed back on this, agreeing to hold a review, but has refused to commit to the use of such ballots or to set a deadline for any future action. While the Conservative party uses electronic voting for selection processes, the government has yet to allow it for trade union votes.

The government also intends to undermine action which manages to successfully navigate the strict balloting requirements, by allowing striking workers to be replaced by agency staff. The Government has said it wants (and I quote)to ”give the recruitment sector the opportunity to help employers to limit the impact to the wider economy and society of strike action,”.

Chair, this is despite statements from the agency sector that they do not seek this. As well as being against the spirit of the Temporary Agency Worker Directive, it would be contrary to the European Sector’s professional code of conduct. The UK Recruitment and Employment Confederation has said “we are not convinced that putting agencies and temporary workers into the middle of difficult industrial relations situations is a good idea for agencies, workers or their clients”. Chair this is another serious violation of freedom of association, creating tensions between employers and employees and making it more difficult to resolve disputes. Agency workers will face an invidious choice between crossing a picket line or turning down employment.

Chair this Act and its related provisions are a very serious interference with the rights of UK workers under Convention 87. It is unwanted, unnecessary, and disproportionate. It is causing immense damage at home and disgrace abroad. Chair, this Committee must send a strong signal that the UK Government must change course, repeal the Act, take no further such steps, but instead must discuss with social partners how to develop a legal framework that is fit for this century.

1