The UN’s labour standards body has told the UK government it should reconsider its strike legislation, which has been criticised as a threat to the fundamental right to strike.
The International Labour Organization (ILO) issued a rare instruction for the UK to “ensure that existing and prospective legislation is in conformity” with international rules on freedom of association. It added that the government must “seek technical assistance” from the agency’s experts and report back on its progress in September.
The anti-strike legislation, which is in its last stages in Parliament, would give the Government the power to enforce minimum levels of service during industrial action. Employers would consult unions on what that means in practice.
Bosses would be legally able to fire employees who ignore a “work notice” ordering them to work on strike days, a change unions have said breaches fundamental rights.
The UN body also concluded that the UK should allow trade unions to conduct electronic balloting of their members. Currently, unions must use postal votes for the election of officials and to gauge support for industrial action.
The ILO’s conclusions, delivered last week by a committee on labour standards, also said that the government should restrict its powers so that they “do not interfere with the autonomy and functioning of workers’ and employers’ organisations”.
The Trades Union Congress (TUC) described the ILO’s conclusions as “hugely embarrassing” for the UK government.
What is the anti-strike bill?
The draft Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill was introduced to Parliament in January by the Energy Security Secretary Grant Shapps. It follows a year of frequent strikes in a number of sectors, including transport, health and education.
The thresholds for launching industrial action are expected to be raised and companies may be able to sue unions if minimum service levels are not met.
What powers will employers have if the bill passes?
Employers would be able to restrict the protection of trade union members from legal action, such as unfair dismissal.
They would also be able to require that “minimum service levels” are delivered during strike action.
The bill would restrict workers' rights’ to withhold labour legally, making it difficult to strike.
Who would the anti-strike bill affect?
The bill would require employees in the following industries to provide minimum service levels:
- Health services
- Fire and rescue services
- Education services
- Transport services
- Decommissioning of nuclear installations and management of radioactive waste and spent fuel
- Border security
What has Grant Shapps said about the bill?
When introducing the bill in Parliament, Mr Shapps said: “The Government has a duty to protect the public’s access to essential public services. Because whilst we absolutely believe in the right to strike, we’re duty-bound to protect the lives and the livelihoods of the British people.”
Today I announced a new bill which would enforce minimum service and safety levels for vital public services.
— Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP (@grantshapps) January 10, 2023
By delivering these safety levels, this government is ensuring that lives and livelihoods are not lost. pic.twitter.com/eGlcE5ah5q
He continued: “So I’m introducing a bill that would give the Government the power to ensure that vital public services will have to maintain a basic function by delivering minimum safety levels, ensuring that lives and livelihoods are not lost.”
How have unions responded to the bill?
The Public and Commercial Services union said it was “working with fellow trade unions and the TUC in fighting against this legislation”.
The National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers general secretary Mick Lynch said the bill was “an attack on human rights and civil liberties”.
He said: “The only reason this draconian legislation is being introduced is because the Government has lost the argument and wants to punish workers for having the temerity to demand decent pay and working conditions. The Government’s own impact assessment of minimum service levels shows it wouldn’t work. They would be better off coming to a negotiated settlement with unions through dialogue.”
Mick Whelan, Aslef’s general secretary, said: “Rishi Sunak, rather than doing the decent thing – the right thing – and negotiating with us, is trying to prevent thousands of workers from being able to withdraw their labour.
“That is what authoritarian governments in authoritarian states do. This is – or should be – a free country. In which it is possible – and perfectly legal – to take industrial action. Which is, after all, a fundamental human right.”
Unison general secretary Christina McAnea said: “Ministers should be putting all their energies into solving the NHS dispute, not worsening relations with health workers.
“Unions want to work with the Government to secure a pay deal but attacking workers makes that much harder.”
