Public Bill Committee TRADE UNION BILL WRITTEN EVIDENCE PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS LONDON—THE STATIONERY OFFICE LIMITED PBC (Bill 058) 2015–2016 © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2015 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament Licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/ Enquiries to the Office of Public Sector Information, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU; e-mail: [email protected] PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS LONDON – TSO (THE STATIONERY OFFICE) and available from: Online The Houses of Parliament Shop www.tsoshop.co.uk 12 Bridge Street, Parliament Square London SW1A 2JX Mail, Telephone Fax & E-mail Telephone orders 020 7219 3890 TSO General enquiries 020 7219 3890 PO Box 29, Norwich NR3 1GN Fax orders 020 7219 3866 Telephone orders/General enquiries: 0333 202 5077 Email: [email protected] Internet: Fax orders: 0333 202 5080 http://www.shop.parliament.uk Email: [email protected] Textphone: 0333 202 5077 TSO@Blackwell and other Accredited Agents 51715 Printed in the United Kingdom by The Stationery Office Ltd Contents Dr Charles Umney (TUB 01) Todd Bailey (TUB 02) James Jeavons (TUB 03) Society of Radiographers (TUB 04) Stuart Seaman (TUB 05) UNITE (TUB 06) Royal College of Midwives (TUB 07) Welsh Local Government Association (TUB 08) Leeds City Council (TUB 09) Trades Union Congress (TUC) (TUB 10) Taxpayers’ Alliance (TUB 11) Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians (UCATT) (TUB 12) Cllr. Simon Blackburn, leader of Blackpool Council (TUB 13) UNISON (TUB 14) City of Wolverhampton Council (TUB 15) GMB (TUB 16) ASLEF (TUB 17) Community (TUB 18) Vera Baird QC, Police and Crime Commissioner for Northumbria (TUB 19) Royal College of Nursing (TUB 20) Professor Keith Ewing (TUB 21) Thompsons Solicitors LLP (TUB 22) CBI (TUB 23) London HR Directors Network (TUB 24) NASUWT, The Teachers’ Union (TUB 25) British Medical Association (BMA) (TUB 26) SUEZ (TUB 27) UNITE – further submission (TUB 28) RMT (TUB 29) Tony Wilson, Managing Director, Abellio London and Surrey (TUB 30) Cllr Darren Rodwell, Leader, London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Council (TUB 31) Communication Workers Union (CWU) (TUB 32) National Union of Teachers (NUT) (TUB 33) CollegesWales/ColegauCymru (TUB 34) North Lanarkshire Council (TUB 35) Chair of North East Regional Employers’ Organisation TUB 36 Professor Keith Ewing – further submission TUB 37 UNISON – further submission TUB 38 Cllr Julian Bell, Leader, Ealing Council TUB 39 Directors of Workforce & Organisational Development, NHS Wales TUB 40 The Law Society of Scotland TUB 41 Tom Flanagan Consulting TUB 42 Sara Ogilvie, Policy Officer, Liberty TUB 43 Dave Godson & Alan Duffell, Joint Chairs of East Midlands Social Partnership Forum TUB 44 Councillor Dee Martin TUB 45 Councillor Barrie Grunewald – Leader of the Council, St Helens Council TUB 46 Councillor Tony Newman TUB 47 GMB - further submission TUB 48 Councillor Alan Rhodes TUB 49 TUC – further submission TUB 50 Cllr Doug Taylor, Leader of the Council, Enfield Council TUB 51 Fire Brigade Union TUB 52 John Hannett, General Secretary, Usdaw TUB 53 Cllr Anthony Hunt, Deputy Leader at Torfaen County Borough Council TUB 54 Cllr Jennifer Mein, Leader of Lancashire County Council TUB 55 Dusty Amroliwala, Deputy Vice Chancellor, University of East London TUB 56 Cllr David Perry, Leader of Harrow Council TUB 57 Letter from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills TUB 58a Letter from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills TUB 58b Letter from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills TUB 58c Letter from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills TUB 58d Letter from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills TUB 58e Letter from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills TUB 58f Oldham Council (TUB 59) Derbyshire County Council (TUB 60) Derby City Council (TUB 61) Trade Union Bill: Written evidence 3 Written evidence Written evidence submitted by Dr Charles Umney (TUB 01) 1. I am a lecturer in employment relations at Leeds University Business School who has conducted and published various pieces of academic research on trade unionism and industrial disputes. I am submitting these remarks for consideration in relation to the Trades Union Bill. 2. Before continuing to address specific elements of the Bill in further detail, I would like to express concern over the consultation process. Various other observers have noted the short period for consultation. However, more fundamental than this was its restrictive nature, which frequently seems intended to shut down any scope for criticisms of the general thrust of the proposals as a whole. For instance, the respondent to the consultation is told about the proposals on turnout thresholds, and then prompted to suggest any additional groups they should be applied to, rather than seeking comments on whether they should be applied at all. This is evidently a problem because it suggests that the government has no real interest in understanding the nature of the issues involved in contemporary industrial disputes; only in pushing through its own agenda which, for various reasons discussed below, appears to be ill-founded and partial. 3. The overall tone of the Bill and the surrounding discussion is deeply worrying. The underlying assumption appears to be that strikes are simply a problem that must be minimised to the benefit of everyone. However, for many workers the right to strike is a critical last resort in their efforts to preserve jobs or working conditions, which may be under unprecedented pressure given current economic conditions. Even if in the, vast majority of cases, this last resort is rarely used, the existence of this right is likely to be an important factor in mitigating more severe downward pressure on wages and working conditions. 4. The point here is that while the government wishes us to believe that this legislation is targeted at counteracting only certain cases of high-impact militant trade unionism, the implications will be felt far beyond these. Any group of workers seeking to negotiate better conditions at work will be disadvantaged by these measures whether they intend to strike or not. More unscrupulous employers seeking to bargain aggressively with workers will know that, where a last resort once existed, it is now de facto out of reach (albeit not technically illegal). Indeed, as I will suggest below, the people likely to suffer most from it are those workers outside of well-organised bargaining units, and who may be in more contingent or low-wage forms of employment. These are people for whom, even at the present moment, conducting industrial action is a frightening and stressful prospect, and whose ability to do so would be all but eradicated should this Bill be made law. 5. More specific comments on the three main proposals follow. BALLOT THRESHOLDS 6. The government has claimed that the proposed new turnout thresholds will in no way undermine the right to strike. This is of course important given that to do so would be in contravention of international conventions on workers’ rights. For example, the International Labour Organisation has recently held that the broader human right of freedom of association can only be upheld where the right to strike is also enforced. So while it is unsurprising that the government claims to be upholding the right to strike, any close reading of the proposals and wider context suggests that this claim is mistaken and possibly disingenuous. 7. It is clear that these proposals will be highly obstructive. This is most obviously the case with regard to workers classified as providing ‘important public services’. In such cases, it suffices to hypothesise a bargaining unit in which a strike ballot has a turnout of 50%. Even if 75% of votes cast were in support of the strike, the strike could still be declared illegal under the proposed thresholds. In this kind of (highly feasible) example, it is very difficult to sustain the belief that the right to strike is being maintained. While it has not technically been withdrawn, extraordinary and disproportionate obstacles have been placed in the way of exercising it. Indeed, research has already found that around half of strikes conducted since 1997 would have been rendered illegal by these measures.1 More worryingly still, the same researchers show that around 3.3 million workers, since 1997, would have been denied the right to strike after having voted for it. 8. However, even setting aside this initial assessment, wider context shows that trade unionists are indeed being treated in a discriminatory manner. Clearly, trade unions should also be worried about low turnouts on strike ballots. And indeed they are, because for some time they have been lobbying to be able to conduct electronic balloting. At present, they are forced to ballot for strikes through sending postal ballot cards to members’ homes. This renders them extremely vulnerable to various problems: outdated addresses (it is hardly unusual for someone to move house and omit to update their trade union), the extra effort involved for the respondent, or the likelihood that communications will simply be overlooked. These problems, which are likely to be important contributors to low turnout, could be at least partially rectified by electronic balloting. But it appears that the government will continue to refuse to allow this. As a result, we are left with a situation whereby trade unions are punished for low turnout, while legislation remains in place which ensures that turnout remains low. The government vaunts trade union ‘modernisation’ in one breath, and actively prevents 1 http://blogs.salford.ac.uk/business-school/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2015/08/SalfordReport.pdf 4 Trade Union Bill: Written evidence it the next. This is an extraordinary state of affairs which greatly exacerbates concerns that the rights of trade unionists are being specifically targeted.