Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2016, publiée 106ème session CIT (2017)

Convention (n° 87) sur la liberté syndicale et la protection du droit syndical, 1948 - Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne et d'Irlande du Nord (Ratification: 1949)

Autre commentaire sur C087

Observation

Demande directe

Afficher en : Francais - EspagnolTout voir

Article 3 of the Convention. Return of workers to their posts following lawful industrial action. In its previous comments, the Committee recalled that workers who stage a lawful strike should be able to return to their posts after the end of the industrial action, and requested the Government to review the legislation, in full consultation with the workers’ and employers’ organizations concerned, with a view to strengthening the protection available to workers who stage official and lawfully organized industrial action. The Committee further notes the Government’s statement to the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in relation to a proposal to repeal the ban on hiring agency workers during strike action that it was still considering its response. The Committee once again requests the Government to inform of developments in this respect and as regards any measures to strengthen the protection available to workers to return to their posts after the end of industrial action.

Procedural requirements for industrial action. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the concerns raised by the Trades Union Congress (TUC) in relation to additional notice requirements set out in the Trade Union Bill (section 7) and requested the Government to provide its comments thereon. The Committee notes that the TUC once again raises its concerns about the 14 day strike notice established by the Act and refers to the conclusions of the European Social Rights Committee over several years that the notice requirements are excessive. The Committee notes that the notice requirement of 14-days for the taking of industrial action is to be added to the seven day notice requirement for balloting, along with the time for carrying out the ballot, which at present remains a postal ballot. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that it does not accept that these requirements are excessive and does not agree with the expansive interpretation given by the European Committee on Social Rights.

The Committee further notes the TUC concerns that the ballot mandate is now declared to come to an end after six months, regardless of whether the dispute has been resolved, and that in order to continue industrial action, the balloting process will have to begin anew. According to the TUC, continuous industrial action would be complicated by the above notice requirements which, in its view, with a postal ballot, could take up to as much as 42 days meaning that the balloting process would have to begin again shortly after its conclusion. The Committee recalls in this regard its position set out in its 1994 General Survey on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining that workers and their organizations should be able to call a strike for an indefinite period if they so wish (General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 146). The Committee expresses its concern that the expiration of the ballot mandate, coupled with the extensive notice requirements and the current context of a postal ballot, are likely to hinder the capacity of workers’ organizations to exercise their activities free from interference. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the progress made to allow electronic balloting and to review the articulation of sections 8 and 9 of the Act in the light of the above concerns.

As regards the new reporting requirements for political expenditure, the Committee notes the TUC concerns that unions are now being supervised by two State agencies, where there is no corresponding duty on companies or other civil society actors. The Government, for its part, explains that the provisions in the Act provide greater transparency for union members on which party or person is benefiting from the fund, thus enabling them to make informed decisions on their participation therein. The TUC considers that the transparency justification is not legitimate as donors must already report to the Electoral Commission, ensuring transparency for the public, and the new requirements in the Act are not limited to making the information available to trade union members.

As regards the move from opting-out to opting-in with respect to contributions to political funds, the Committee notes the information provided by the TUC recalling that there were already a certain number of protective requirements relating to the political funds of trade unions, including the requirement that members be balloted (via the post) every ten years for authority to continue to promote political objects. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Act was modified to place the opt-in requirement only on new members and that political funds before the end of the transition period (at least 12 months from the entry into force of the Act) will not be affected by the new provisions. The Committee further observes the concerns raised by the TUC that members can still opt out at any time and that the unions must annually notify members of their right so to do. The Committee notes that this matter has been the subject of historical considerations and consultation for over a century, forming an important basis of industrial relations in the country, and requests the Government to continue its dialogue with the social partners in this regard.