What exactly is the Trade Union Bill?

Today is the second day of the 147^th Trade Union Congress, a historic part of British democracy, where elected delegates representing 6.2 million working people will gather, discuss and debate abroad range of issues effecting the Labour movement and working lives. It is also the Second reading of the Trade Union Bill in the House of Commons, a much anticipated piece of legislation designed to deliver a mortal blow to the Labour Movement.

The bill was accompanied by three short consultations which will ran over the summer and concluded on the 9^th September, with the intention that the responses could be reported as part of the second reading.

Whilst the headline announcement of introducing thresholds for ballots, is widely known much of the details of the bill seems to have slipped the level of media attention it warrants. For should this bill become legislation it would inflict wide ranging restrictions, on the ability of working people in this country to collectively organise. It shifts the already uneven balance of power in the workplace, further away from workers to the advantage of employers.

The Bill should be seen in the context of a neo-liberal attempt to carry forward Thatcher’s mantle and restrict union activity, to such a degree that the only player in industrial relations would be the will of the free market. However it should be noted that in many ways this isn’t the legislation of small state politics, but is actually rather authoritarian.

The bill greatly increases the role of the certification officer (a sort of regulator for trade unions). The CO would be empowered to start investigations into trade union on its own volition, rather than waiting for a complaint. The CO will now also be able to act on intelligence from employers hostile to trade union organisation, and will be given powers to appoint inspectors, to carry out investigations into union activity. If there is a suspicion a union or union activists have breached their statutory duties, the CO now has the power to seize documents and evidence. Should unions be acting inappropriately financial penalties will be imposed.

Compare this with employers, where there is no equivalent regulator employing inspectors able to seize evidence to check whether employers are fulfilling their obligations, under the working time directive or whether workers are being unfairly dismissed. Often the only recourse a worker has is to take a case to an employment tribunal (paying a fee for this privilege). This would normally have to be retrospectively after the worker has suffered a detriment. The onus lies on the worker to seek justice.

Of course the new CO powers will cost money, but the government has a solution to this- they will levy charges on the unions to fund it! Unions will also now be required to report all industrial action that has taken place in the last 12 months, the nature of the disputes, what action was taken, and the turnout and ballot results, with a fine imposed if this is not provided.

This big state legislation goes further, even proscribing extra wording that should be contained on official ballot papers. Ballot paper will now have to include a statement alerting members that if they take industrial action this may breach their contract of employment, and reminding them they have no protection from dismissal if action is unofficial, and only limited unfair dismissal rights (for 12 weeks).

The Bill will compel unions to provide 'detailed indication’ of the dispute with the employer on the ballot paper, and where the voting paper asks whether members would support action short of a strike, the ballot paper must describe what form this might take. Also the expected timetable for the dispute must be set out on the ballot.

One can’t help wondering whether there will be any room left for members to vote? On serious note these extra layers of bureaucracy aim to provide many avenues in which employers can take out an injunction to prevent action, should the union “stuff up” on any particular requirement.

Where any industrial action – lasts for more than four months the union will be required to re-ballot. Unions have historically relied on one ballot mandate to organise a succession of strike days over a period of 12 months or so.

As reasonably well reported the bill would introduce the only form of turnout fresh holds in British democracy.   Industrial action only being lawful if: there is a minimum 50% turnout amongst members who are entitled to vote. And further in certain ‘important public services’, there would also need to be 40% support for action amongst those balloted. In other words you would need a 50% turn out with a 80% yes vote.

Should a union successfully navigate all the hoops in place, and manage to take industrial action the bill then takes a frankly bizarre turn. It’s worth noting that at present there is a statutory Code of Practice that governs conduct during strikes, which amongst other things limits picket numbers to six people. The new bill takes things to a whole new level. Each union must appoint a picket supervisor to oversee the picket line. In something reminiscent of a fascist regime the supervisor must wear an identifying armband or badge, and carry with them at all times a letter of authorisation from the union. This should be presented if requested by the police or any nosey member of the public.

As if this sort of “Union snoop charter” doesn’t go far enough there are even plans to include requiring unions to report on plans to run social media accounts for campaigning around disputes.

As well as the bits contained within the Bill on the 6^th August (the day there was severe disruption in London due to a tube strike) The government announced their intention to end “Check-off” a mutually beneficial arrangement where employees agree to deduct union subs at source from staff members who request so. This allows the employer to keep an eye on union density, and is simple and easy for union members. It is often the case that trade Unions pay the (minimal) costs associated with payrolls operating this system. The only real reason for the proposal is to get rid of large numbers of trade union members in one clean sweep. It could well mean members just drop of,  unions faced with a battle to go round completing direct debit mandates for millions of members who have always paid at source.

I have only briefly attempted to highlight some of the nasties contained in this vindictive piece of legislation. However I recommend that anyone interested should visit the TUC website at https://www.tuc.org.uk/tubill which has a wealth of resources.  

Although this bill way well be enacted, given its draconian, authoritarian and impractical nature there is certainly potential to achieve helpful amendments.     

 

By Frank Jackson