Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 1996, publiée 85ème session CIT (1997)

1. The Committee notes the information provided in the Government's report with respect to its comments concerning the limitations placed upon trade unions by section 174 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act of 1992 (TULRA), as amended by the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act of 1993, which merely repeats what was stated in previous reports. The Committee must once again recall that, while section 174 of the TULRA, as amended, was, according to the Government, intended to provide individuals greater freedom to join trade unions of their own choosing, it may indeed have a serious impact on the right of union members to determine the make up of their organization in accordance with its objectives. The Committee would therefore once again request the Government to consider narrowing the scope of this section to permit for greater freedom for workers' organizations to determine their membership in accordance with their objective of furthering and defending workers' interests, in so far as the fundamental human rights of the individual worker are not violated.

2. The Committee notes the information provided in the Government's report concerning the third party right, inter alia, to apply to the courts for interlocutory relief where a trade union is engaged in, or is likely to be engaged in, industrial action. The Government underlines, in particular, that section 235A of the 1992 Act only concerns unlawful industrial action. The TUC, however, has indicated in its comments over a number of years that the current legislation increases the likelihood that industrial action will be considered unlawful on the basis of minor procedural flaws in respect of provisions regulating minute details. Furthermore, the Committee notes that, under section 235A, interlocutory relief can be requested were the industrial action has not yet taken place, but where it is considered that a union or an individual is likely to take part in unlawful industrial action. The Committee would therefore once again request the Government to give consideration to repealing this section of the Act in so far as it unduly limits the legitimate exercise of the right to strike by placing all strike action under the potential threat of injunctions granted under this section.

3. In its previous comments, the Committee indicated that section 226A of the 1992 Act, if interpreted to mean that all individuals entitled to vote in a strike ballot had to be specified by name, might render the ballot requirement unreasonably difficult for unions to fulfil and leave industrial action constantly vulnerable to attack. In its latest report, the Government indicates that the purpose of this section is to enable an employer to identify the workforce which may be affected by a ballot so that the employer can put his or her case directly to such employees and take appropriate steps to minimize the damage to business, customers and the public which industrial action might cause. The Government adds that, while rare, there may be some cases where naming individual employees may be the only practicable means for identifying those being asked to consider industrial action. The Committee is of the view that such a requirement constitutes an undue influence on the right of workers' organizations to organize their activities in full freedom, particularly in light of the Government's indication that this provision is specifically intended to enable employers to put their cases directly to the workers concerned. Furthermore, the Committee notes that the TUC comments of 7 November 1996 raise a number of serious concerns with respect to the application of this section and requests the Government to provide detailed information on the matters raised in its next report.