CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes the information provided in the Government’s report, as well as the observations made by the Trades Union Congress (TUC) and the mainly public sector trade union UNISON. The Committee requests the Government to reply to these observations in its next reports under this Convention and Convention No. 98.

The Committee first notes with interest the introduction in 1999 of the Employment Relations Act (ERA) which will amend a certain number of provisions of the 1992 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act upon which the Committee has been commenting for a number of years. In particular, the Committee notes with satisfaction the abolition of the Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members (CRTUM) and of the Commissioner for Protection Against Unlawful Industrial Action (CPAUIA) under section 28 of the ERA which came into force on 25 October 1999. The Committee further notes from section 4 and Schedule 3 of the 1999 Act that the purpose of ballot notice has now been restricted to providing information to help the employer to make plans and bring information to the attention of those of his or her employees concerned, and that it is specifically provided that unions are not required to name the employees concerned when giving ballot notice. Furthermore, the Committee notes with interest the indication in the Government’s report that a revised Code of Practice on Industrial Action Ballots and Notice to Employers was issued for consultation in April 2000 reflecting these changes and that the revised Code and the relevant parts of the 1999 Act are expected to come into force on 18 September 2000. The Committee requests the Government to confirm in its next report the entry into force of these provisions and to provide a copy of the revised Code of Practice.

Furthermore, the Committee requests the Government to reply as soon as possible to UNISON’s observations concerning these amendments and to provide any information available in respect of the interpretation of the amendments made to section 226A(2)(c).

The Committee also notes, however, that there are a number of points raised in its previous comments which have not yet been addressed.

1.  Unjustifiable discipline (sections 64-67).  The Committee recalls that its previous comments concerned sections 64-67 of the 1992 Act which prevented trade unions from disciplining their members who refused to participate in lawful strikes and other industrial action or who sought to persuade fellow members to refuse to participate in such action.  In its latest report, the Government maintains that these sections provide necessary protections for individual workers in their relationship with their unions and the consequent constraints on union freedoms are justified. The Government adds, however, that they do not operate a system of prior vetting or approval of union constitutions or rule books by a public authority.

The Committee takes due note of this information. It once again recalls that unions should have the right to draw up their rules and to formulate their programmes without the interference of the public authorities which should restrict or impede the exercise of freedom of association and so to determine whether or not it should be possible to discipline members who refuse to comply with democratic decisions to take lawful industrial action. It requests the Government to continue to keep it informed of any developments in respect of these provisions and, in particular, to provide in its next report any information concerning complaints brought under section 66 and awards granted in this respect under section 67. It further requests the Government to reply as soon as possible to the observations made by the TUC in respect of these provisions.

2.  Immunities in respect of civil liability for strikes and other industrial action (section 224). The Committee recalls that its previous comments concerned the absence of immunities in respect of civil liability when undertaking sympathy strikes. It notes the Government’s indication that no changes have been made in this respect. The Committee once again recalls that workers should be able to take industrial action in relation to matters which affect them even though, in certain cases, the direct employer may not be party to the dispute. This principle is of particular importance in the light of earlier comments made by the Trades Union Congress (TUC) that employers commonly avoided the adverse effects of disputes by transferring work to associated employers and that companies have restructured their businesses in order to make primary action secondary. The Committee must reiterate that workers should be able to participate in sympathy strikes provided the initial strike they are supporting is itself lawful, and requests the Government to reply as soon as possible to the issues raised by the TUC and by UNISON in this respect.

The Committee is raising a number of points in a request addressed directly to the Government.