NSSN NEEDED TO FIGHT

ANTI-STRIKE LAWS 

31 May All British governments for the last 25 years have breached International Labour Organisation (ILO) Conventions, which define strike action as a fundamental human right. 

Alex Gordon, RMT President

RMT is currently taking the British government to the European Court of Human Rights for outlawing the right to take sympathetic (or solidarity) action - banned as 'secondary action' by Thatcher�s government in 1985 in breach of international law. 

The Major government�s Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRCA) required trade unions to identify individual members involved in strikes to employers, even though employers can seek damages against employees for striking. 

New Labour�s Employment Relations Act 1999, made it unfair to dismiss an employee (though not a worker) for taking lawful industrial action within a �protected period� of eight weeks - increased to twelve weeks in 2004.  After 12 weeks however, striking workers can be dismissed with impunity.  Even within the 12 weeks workers are not protected against action short of dismissal, for example demotion.  Neither can courts compel employers to reinstate wrongfully dismissed employees. 

Labour also replaced the requirement for unions to identify individuals on strike with a requirement for unions to provide information to enable employers to identify employees on strike and prepare for strike breaking.  Judges interpret this to mean the union must provide a matrix or spreadsheet showing numbers of union members balloted and called on to strike in each workplace and job title. 

Since 2009 employers have won numerous High Court injunctions over this requirement.  Employers have been able to persuade judges that unions fail to supply sufficiently accurate information in the legal �notice of ballot�.  It is easy to imagine in most disputes that calculating precise numbers of union members employed in various workplaces or job titles is extremely complex and subject to frequent changes. 

However, on 4 March 2011 the Appeal Court overturned recent injunctions granted by High Court judges against ASLEF and RMT and demolished legal arguments used to justify them.  The judgement went further than John McDonnell, MP�s Lawful Industrial Action (Minor Errors) Bill last year, which Ed Miliband couldn�t bring himself to support at a second reading. 

RMT General Secretary, Bob Crow described the judgment as "not only a victory for RMT's 80,000 members but also a massive victory for seven million trade unionists in the UK." 

The Appeal Court confirmed the right to strike in international law; ILO Conventions 98 and 151 and the European Convention on Human Rights Article 11(1) on freedom of association. 

The judgement has bolstered unions such as PCS, NUT, ATL, UCU and Unite representing potentially two million civil servants, teachers, lecturers and other public sector workers seeking to coordinate strike action in defence of services, jobs and pensions on 30 June. 

Following the half million strong TUC national demonstration on 26 March and the trouncing of Clegg�s Lib Dems in local elections on 5 May, a mass public sector strike on 30 June could be the catalyst for refocussing real opposition to the ConDem assault on our public services. 

ConDem anti-strike laws

Osborne�s recessionary austerity policy and Tory and Lib Dems� shared, visceral hatred of trade unions, therefore make new legislation restricting strike action very likely. 

Already Tory MP, Dominic Raab a former corporate lawyer, London Mayor Boris Johnson and the Policy Exchange think tank are demanding minimum participation thresholds for ballots or strike bans in essential public services. 

On 26 April, Raab used a parliamentary ten minute rule bill to propose new restrictions on strikes.  According to Raab, if a trade union wants to call a strike in transport or �essential services�, it should win a majority of all those eligible to vote in a postal ballot.  Current UK law requires a simple majority of those who vote, a standard method of in any organisation. 

For example, at the 2010 general election, Raab polled 32,134 votes in his Surrey constituency.  More than a quarter of his 76,962 constituents did not vote.  His party polled 10.7 million votes nationally, their Lib Dem partners 6.8 million, in a UK electorate of 45 million people.  Neither Raab, nor his party, nor their governing coalition partners would be elected under the rules he proposes for trade unionists. 

Although Raab�s ten minute rule bill fell, it is widely regarded as an opening salvo to intimidate unions from organising strikes against effects of spending cuts in the next 4 years. 

The argument about what form new anti-union legislation should take has been taking place among and between the governing parties.  At last month�s Institute of Directors conference, Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne upstaged the organisation that regularly voices the most extreme, free-market, anti-regulation views. 

The IoD�s Miles Templeman complained that Osborne�s government had not �fully grasped the burden of employment law, which discourages smaller companies from taking on staff.� 

Osborne rebutted this, announcing plans to cap tribunal discrimination compensation; abolish 90-day consultation for redundancies; and scrap Transfer of Undertakings Protection of Employment (TUPE) rules that protect workers whose jobs are privatised. 

He then went further, urging IoD members to help government ministers rewrite legislation on workers� rights, saying "There are lots of people who will oppose this, lots of pressure groups. We really need the people who make the arguments � to make sure they are heard. Otherwise it is government alone defending itself against those pressure groups."[i] 

Rah, rah, bash the oiks!

Not to be outdone Mayor of London, Boris Johnson was at it last month currying favour with the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) and staking his claim to be next Tory leader. 

Johnson called for a 50 per cent minimum turnout in strike ballots, while the CBI is demanding 40 per cent of all those balloted should vote in favour for strike action.  Needless to say, under either rule Boris wouldn�t have been elected Mayor of London. 

Giving a flavour of the central importance that the issue of anti-strike legislation is now assuming for the coalition parties, Johnson attacked government ministers for considering a new requirement that unions calling strikes in public services should ensure that a minimum service level provision is maintained. 

This was discussed at a meeting between Johnson, Francis Maude, Cabinet Office minister and chief Tory strategist, and Ed Davey, Lib Dem employment relations minister. 

Knowing from experience on London Underground that a 50% service can be worse than no service at all, Johnson accused the government of being �lily-livered� for not bringing in tough laws to make it harder for unions to win strike ballots. 

Of course, Johnson wants to distract from his own incompetence at Transport for London, where RMT members Arwyn Thomas and Eamonn Lynch, two train driver reps sacked by LUL because of their trade union activities won unfair dismissal tribunal claims and are currently the subject of planned combine-wide strikes by RMT members demanding reinstatement. 

As the Financial Times noted: �The government is engaged in complicated negotiations with public sector workers over employment and pensions. These would be jeopardised were it to appear to embark on an anti-union crusade. Transport for London, which runs the Tube, may not be blameless in its handling of the dispute.�[ii]

�Proportionality�

More likely however, will be an attempt to extend 'proportionality', a concept imported from European law in a number of recent European Court of Justice cases.  This allows judges to decide what forms of industrial action (if any) are appropriate in disputes, something not even Thatcher's anti-union laws achieved. 

The government has been examining a minimum service level as used in Spain and Italy.  However, in both countries the industrial relations climate is very different from Britain, with a right wing social partnership agenda dominating national collective bargaining, precisely the sort of �70s corporatism� that British businesses represented by the IoD are allergic to. 

For example, in the Italian public transport sector, governments and employers only recognise trade unions for pay bargaining if they sign up to �social partnership� - including running a minimum service during public transport strikes.  One result of this has been the growth of more militant, �unofficial� trade unions in Italy and Spain as workers reject the partnership model of industrial relations in favour of class struggle.  You can�t have social partnership with austerity. 

In Britain, from a historical low point the number of working days lost to strikes and numbers of workers involved both as a whole and on a public/private basis is increasing.  In 2010 November was the month with the highest number of strike days (24,000) involving 13,000 workers largely in the public sector. 

This figure was already eclipsed in March 2011, the latest month for which figures are available, with 51,000 strike days, in 11 different disputes involving 39,000 workers, of whom over two thirds (35,000) work in the private sector.[iii]  Clearly something is changing. 

The next six months will be critical in escalating the fight back against austerity cuts.  A 30 June public sector strike will be a milestone, but an onslaught of anti-union laws will likely follow.  For trade unions to resist this will require intelligent strategy and tactical acumen. 

The National Shop Steward Network can perform a key role encouraging exchange of experiences between trade unionists in struggle, generalising lessons from successful strike action and continuing to build solidarity at workplaces and with community anti-cuts organisations. 

Above all the NSSN will continue to campaign for a complete repeal of the UK�s obnoxious anti-trade union laws and for a positive framework of legislation giving workers rights to belong to a trade union, rights to collective bargaining and rights to back it up with strike action when necessary.