International Centre for Trade Union Rights

'Mr Citizen' recruited to take on the unionsAuthor(s): Michael FordSource: International Union Rights, Vol. 1, No. 3, Contradictory perspectives? The riddles ofMaastricht's social dimension (FIRST QUARTER 1993), p. 44Published by: International Centre for Trade Union RightsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41935329 .

Accessed: 16/06/2014 09:43

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

International Centre for Trade Union Rights is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to International Union Rights.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.205 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 09:43:08 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BRITAIN □ NEW LEGISLATION

'Mr Citizen' recruited

to take on the unions

A complex and

repressive law

could be rushed

through

parliament as its

sheer volume and

complexity will

preclude an in

depth study by the

House. Michael

Ford reports.

Michael Ford is a barrister specialising in employment law. He is also a tutor in law at Birkbeck College of the University of London.

At every sive

a time

piece danger

of

of

acute

employment that

economic an extremely

legislation

crisis, there repres-

will

is every danger that an extremely repres- sive piece of employment legislation will

pass through almost unnoticed. Recently, the Trade Union and Employment Rights Bill was published: If enacted, it would represent a great curtailment of trade union freedoms.

The Bill would make lawful industrial action so procedurally complex that follow- ing the labyrinthine rules would inevitably involve technical breaches in many circum- stances. At the same time, any irregularity, no matter how trivial, would often result in action being taken against the union; the Government proposes to empower every "citi- zen" to bring actions to restrain "unlawful" industrial action.

The Bill, running to some 100 pages, is too lengthy to receive the detailed attention that it deserves here. What does need emphasising, however, is the potentially draconian effect of some of the proposals.

Foremost amongst these are the provisions that will grant any member of the public the right to an injunction against unlawful indus- trial action (clause 19). So long as that action will merely present, delay or reduce the quali- ty of goods and services to that person, an action may be brought; clearly, any industrial action whatsoever is likely to have some such effect. And to help the "citizen" in bringing the action a new Commissioner is to be established, who may pay the legal expenses - a glaring contrast to actions in industrial tribunals, for which legal aid is unavailable, and to the recent decision to cease funding union ballots.

We must not be de- ceived, either, into

Foremost amongst the

provisions (of the bill) are those that will grant any member of the public the

right to an injunction against unlawful industrial action... and to help the "citizen" in

bringing the action a new Commissioner is to be

established, who may pay the legal expenses.

thinking that because only "unlawful" indus- trial action can be attacked, that most strikes will be exempt:

The breach of any of the complex legal rules on balloting or secondary action, for instance, will make all the action "unlawful". Whereas before, some employers might not choose to rely on any trivial breach of this nature, in future anti-union members of the public no doubt will.

By the same token, the Government, while encouraging in every way the public who do

not want to sue, keeps itself hidden in the background, away from the legal battle. The right to strike (and freedom of expression) already in tatters, will be completely illusory if the Bill be-comes law. Other provisions in the Bill, while not as vindictive, impose enor- mous burdens upon trade unions.

New balloting rules will require a union to have a full postal ballot with independent scrutiny before industrial action, mergers, election and in relation to political funds. Seven days notice of the intention to ballot will have to be given to the employer, as well as a further seven days notice (after a favourable ballot) before any industrial action is actually taken. Not only are the costs of this bound to be high, but it will effectively pre- clude quick settlements of disputes; and another procedural obstacle has got to be cleared if the action is to be lawful.

The Bill also hits at union finances. Their financial affairs in general are to be strictly controlled (clauses 6-10), and check-off ( deduction of union dues by the employer) will require written authorisation every three years by members. Coming on top of the announcement that government funding of ballots is to cease, the twin move of increas-

ing the balloting re- quirements and simul- taneously attacking union finances is only consistent with a policy based on contempt. Principles of justice are simply ignored.

The Bill is not entire- ly bad, although this is not really due to the Government: Europe remains a source of laws protecting work- ers. Thus, maternity lea- ve is to be made auto- matic for all employees, some safeguards are given for dismissals

over health and safety complaints, and the rules on transfers of businesses are brought into line with the EEC Directives.

On the whole, treatment between unions and other kinds of associations is to become yet more obvious and more unjustifiable.

Despite a continuous series of scandals relating to the management of companies, it is notable that the latest proposals for reform in this area, from the "Cadbury Report" rec- ommend voluntary "regulation". But unions, it seems, can never be regulated enough □

INTERNATIONAL UNION RIGHTS

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.205 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 09:43:08 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions