ILO-en-strap
NORMLEX
Information System on International Labour Standards

Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body - REPORT_NO316, June 1999

CASE_NUMBER 1852 (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) - COMPLAINT_DATE: 03-OKT-95 - Closed

DISPLAYINFrench - Spanish

Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body

Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body
  1. 80. At its meeting in November 1998, the Committee requested the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the consultation process and the status of the proposals made in the White Paper on Fairness at Work in so far as they touched upon the matters dealt with in this case. It also requested the Government to provide information on the specific facts of the case, particularly in respect of the measures taken to ensure that the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation (ISTC) is afforded reasonable access to Co-Steel both for contact with its members and with potential members (see 311th Report, paras. 76-77).
  2. 81. In a communication dated 30 October 1998, the Trades Union Congress (TUC) transmitted information relating to recent developments at the Co-Steel plant at Sheerness. The TUC alleges that Co-Steel had just announced 18 redundancies and a few days later indicated that it was selling part of the enterprise. The TUC points out that the number of terminations is just less than the number for which notice must be given to the authorities and for which consultation with employee representatives is required. According to the TUC, 14 of the people affected were active trade union members, 12 of whom were members of the ISTC organizing team in Co-Steel. Immediately after these terminations were announced new contracts of employment and plans to introduce a management-controlled works council were proposed to the remaining workforce. The TUC also refers to the dismissal the previous year of Joe Davey, ISTC convenor, who was found to have been unfairly dismissed and claims that the actions of the management since 199
  3. 2 have been directed at destroying the ISTC presence in the plant. Furthermore, it was made clear to employees who were made supervisors that they were expected to resign their trade union membership and the company had announced that new contracts would be assistant managers in a move designed to widen the bargaining unit to include real managers and thus to frustrate future attempts to win trade union recognition. Finally, the TUC states that there still has been no inquiry into the anti-union tactics of the company, particularly as concerns its disregard of the overwhelming vote by Co-Steel employees for ISTC representation and for collective bargaining.
  4. 82. In a communication dated 3 March 1999, the Government, recalling that the focus of the question is one of trade union recognition, informs the Committee that the Employment Relations Bill currently before Parliament contains important provisions to establish a statutory procedure whereby unions can gain recognition. The Government considers that these procedures will defuse the type of dispute which has occurred at Co-Steel and ensure that unions can gain recognition where a majority of the workforce favour it. The Government further indicates that disputes concerning recognition are already being resolved voluntarily by the parties in advance of the new Bill becoming law and suggests that it is open to Allied Steel and Wire, which recently bought the Sheerness plant from Co-Steel, to pursue this kind of voluntary resolution. As concerns the allegations of inadequate protection against anti-union victimization occurring in the plant, the Government recalls that workers can appeal to the employment tribunal seeking redress on the grounds of unfair dismissal. The Government refers in this respect to the appeal made by Joe Davey and the close and detailed consideration by the tribunal which, while finding that he was unfairly dismissed, did not consider the dismissal to be based on grounds of trade union membership. In this case, the company was ordered to pay compensation. The Government enclosed a copy of the tribunal's judgement with its communication. Finally, the Government states that it does not intend to carry out an inquiry into the events at Co-Steel as it does not operate a labour inspectorate system common to most countries, but rather provides employment tribunals to hear cases of alleged infringements of employment rights.
  5. 83. The Committee takes note of this information. As concerns the matter of union recognition generally, the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in respect of the Employment Relations Bill and to transmit a copy of this Bill as soon as it has been adopted. As concerns the allegations of further anti-union victimization at Co-Steel, the Committee recalls the importance it attaches to the principle that such allegations should be inquired into immediately by the competent authority with a view to taking suitable measures to remedy the effects of any anti-union discrimination and regrets the Government's refusal to carry out any such investigation. In particular, the Committee regrets that the Government has not provided any information on the measures taken in respect of its previous recommendation that the Government ensure that the ISTC is afforded reasonable access to Co-Steel both for contact with its members and potential members. Given the apparent lack of progress in resolving the serious difficulties in labour-management relations at this plant, the Committee once again requests the Government to give consideration to establishing an independent investigation into the allegations of anti-union tactics and to indicate the measures taken to ensure that reasonable access to the plant has been afforded to the ISTC. It requests the Government to keep it informed of the measures taken in this regard.
© Copyright and permissions 1996-2024 International Labour Organization (ILO) | Privacy policy | Disclaimer