Written evidence from Public Services International (TUB0011)
Submission to the Parliamentary Joint Select Committee on Human Rights in relation to the Trade Union Bill
Public Services International (PSI) is a Global Trade Union Federation bringing together more than 20 million workers, represented by 669 unions in 154 countries and territories. We are dedicated to promoting quality public services in every part of the world. Our members, two-thirds of whom are women, work in social services, health care, municipal and community services, central government, and public utilities such as water and electricity. PSI counts six UK trade union affiliates representing workers in British public services.
As a global trade union federation, PSI regularly engages with employers and governments, including in the UK, to protect the labour and trade union rights and improve conditions of all those who work in public services as well as the services they provide to society, a role directly affected by the proposals in this consultation.
PSI believes that the Trade Union bill is designed to restrict the ability of British people at work to organise collectively, make their voice heard at work and take industrial action. In doing so, the Bill’s proposals significantly disempower British employees within the workplace and are unfair, unnecessary and undemocratic. They will also undermine social partnership in the workplace and the civil liberties of working people in Britain. To attempt such a drastic undertaking on the basis of a consultation process and impact assessment which the Regulatory Policy Committee itself has rated ‘Not Fit for Purpose’ causes PSI deep concern.
GENERAL POINTS
PSI would like to express its serious concern and opposition to the Trade Union Bill which in its view will severely undermine fundamental human and trade union rights, such as freedom of association and the right to strike in the UK. These fundamental rights have been enshrined and acknowledged in international human rights’ treaties and jurisprudence since 1948 in the UN, ILO and EU human rights instruments and are cornerstones of all free democratic societies. We believe it will cripple the UK industrial relations system, curtail the social and civil rights of UK people, dramatically erode workplace democracy and set a very dangerous precedent for the European Union and the rest of the world. We also share the view of the UK Regulatory Policy Committee that the whole Bill is ‘not fit for purpose’.
We oppose the proposal to increase the thresholds of ballots for industrial action, including a higher threshold for “important” public services. We believe that these measures are unnecessary and disproportionate and that the arguments and case for such reform are intrinsically flawed and biased. The UK is among the most regulated industrial systems of the world and strikes are at historically low levels.
We are also appalled at the proposal to enable the use of agency workers during industrial disputes, the criminalization of picketing and other forms of protest, the heavy limitations and surveillance being put on trade union activity and the use of social media in support of labour struggles. These measures are not only undemocratic and at odds with fundamental human and trade union rights, for which the UK should be a world-class benchmark, but they will also create a climate of fear and intimidation among workers which will prevent them from speaking and standing up for their rights. This will lead to the creation of deep social tensions and unrest at the workplace; and will ultimately result in explosive social conflicts which will no longer be possible to resolve within the constructive framework that trade unions and employers – including in the public sector – have been effectively building and using for many decades.
The UK needs strong, free trade unions as they are key partners for the democratic, economic and social development of the country and critical allies in building a more equitable society that supports the neediest. This is especially relevant to the UK, where inequality and poverty levels are among the highest of the OECD countries and at a time when the global economic crisis is hitting the weakest members of the UK society. The positive contributions delivered by the UK unions in the UK workplace and in the wider society on a daily base are broadly disregarded. These include their positive role as partners – not opponents - of managing workplace relations, transitions and organizational change, as well as facilitating the settlement of industrial disputes. Concrete examples include social partnerships in education, NHS and local government.
The right to strike is a fundamental tool in the set of instruments that trade unions can use in constructive collective bargaining. Public sector union members are committed public servant and have always agreed to provide minimum levels of services to protect the public’s security and safety and health. The deliberate attempt to weaken the position of labour through the lopsided legislation of the proposed Trade Union Bill, which is evidently geared towards the interests of other UK social partners – business and government – will alter the balance and inevitably clog the UK industrial relations system, make it harder to engage in constructive negotiations and dispute settlements in the future.
We believe that the UK Government should show leadership in respecting and strengthening – not detracting from – the human and social rights of British people. Especially the observance and implementation of fundamental ILO international labour conventions, including ILO C. 87 and C. 98, to which the UK is a signatory, as well as the obligation stemming from the membership to the European Union that include the EU Charter of Human Rights and EU Social Charter, and the duty of the State to protect human rights including labour rights, as enshrined in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) and proactively endorsed in the 2013 UK Government’s National Action Plan.
Fundamental human and labour rights should not enter the battlefield of electoral campaigns and political cycles. We urge the UK Government to withdraw this draft Bill that breaches fundamental human and labour rights and would place the UK among the ranks of human rights offender countries. We encourage the UK Government to focus instead on positive, constructive measures to facilitate and support social dialogue among all UK social partners, as well as sustainable economic growth and decent employment opportunities for the UK people, both in the public and private sector.
PSI strongly disagrees with the introduction of statutory thresholds including the requirements for a minimum 50% participation rate and a 40% ‘yes vote’ amongst those entitled to vote in ballots involving ‘important public services’ or ancillary activities. These measures will create a climate of fear and intimidation among workers which will prevent them from speaking and standing up for their rights to keep their jobs and improve their workplace conditions. This will lead to the creation of deep social tensions and unrest at the workplace; and will ultimately result in explosive social conflicts which will no longer be possible to resolve within the constructive framework that trade unions and employers – including in the public sector – have been effectively building and using for many decades.
The right to strike is a fundamental tool in the set of instruments that trade unions can use in constructive collective bargaining and there is no reason to curtail it. In 2006, the ILO Freedom of Association Committee made it clear that ‘the requirement of a decision by over half of all the workers involved in order to declare a strike is excessive and could excessively hinder the possibility of carrying out a strike, particularly in large enterprises’ (Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee of the Governing Body of the ILO, paragraph 556) and has called on governments to amend their national laws where they included such provisions (Ibid. paragraph 558).
In effect, the UK is among the most regulated industrial systems of the world and strikes are at historically low levels. As the House of Commons pointed out, more working days were lost in labour disputes in 1926 than in the 37 years combined between 1974-2011. In addition, industrial actions in the UK tend to have a very limited duration with an average of no more than 2 days lost in 2014.
Trade unions in public services, including fire, health, education, transport border security, nuclear decommissioning and ancillary services already use industrial action as a measure of last resort and have always responsibly agreed to provide minimum levels of services to protect the public’s security and safety and health. There is therefore no need for the UK Government to place further limitations, red tape and controls on the action of UK trade unions, including on public service ones.
In terms of sectors, we hold that the current legislation is already overly severe and certainly no further regulation is necessary. This is supported by the fact that strikes in the sectors mentioned under this question typically are very short of are called off before they take place, precisely because they represent the leverage unions have to get employers to make a step forward towards an amicable settlement when there is a sticky dispute. For instance, in 2014 two days of strike were called at NHS (one in October and one in November) while further planned strikes were called off because a better offer was made. These strikes were the only strike over pay among UK health workers over 34 years. Similar examples can be quoted for employees of the UK Food Standards Agency and local government.
By enabling the use of agency workers, the Bill’s proposal also undermines occupational health and safety. In effect, agency labour is often untrained and unaware of key workplace regulations including occupational health and safety and would cause a serious concern for themselves, their co-workers and the public.
Finally it has to be reminded that the International Labour Organizations clearly holds under C.87 that public service employees organizations should enjoy the full right to further and defend the interests of the workers whom they represent, just like workers of other sectors. It is not legitimate to restrict the right to strike of these workers on the grounds of disruption or inconvenience. Besides, under ILO’s C. 151 of which the UK is a signatory, “public employees' organisations shall enjoy adequate protection against any acts of interference by a public authority in their establishment, functioning or administration.
None of the factors listed above justifies restrictions, red tape and heavy surveillance and a discriminatory approach to public service employees proposed in the Bill. This Bill goes against both fundamental international labour rights provisions and if passed would place the UK in breach of such provisions.
PSI does not agree with the UK government’s approach to ancillary workers. The government should not consider applying a 40% ballot threshold neither to the occupations above nor to any other sector and occupation in the UK. Ancillary workers contribute to the delivery of critical public services and they contribute to quality public services and to the public’s safety and security just like the employees of the core sectors and occupations they support. It will be difficult, burdensome and costly for UK trade unions to define who is an important public service employee and who an ancillary service employee and it will be a huge waste of time and resources.
PSI is extremely concerned that, if implemented, the Bill would dangerously diminish and divert UK trade unions’ resources from the constructive, necessary workplace, economic and societal roles of representing and defending their members; improving their workplace and working conditions and being a strong, necessary social partner in the UK economy and society, into complying with the red tape and administrative burden of no use whatsoever to working people.
The following aspects are, among others, of special concern to us:
- UK unions will have to pay fines if they fail to comply with the new, convoluted legislation and reporting requirements;
- the increased legal costs for both unions and employers associated with protracted litigation that will stem from the Bill;
- it will be difficult, burdensome and costly for UK trade unions to define who is an important public service employee and who an ancillary service employee and it will be a huge waste of time and resources;
- the restrictions on trade union facilities time that will curtail the ability of UK workers to have a voice and representation at the workplace, diminishing workplace democracy in the UK;
- the new provision prohibits the use of check off facilities in the public sector that will create a major cost for organizational change. This is a matter between the union and its members and then government should not interfere with the system.
20 November 2015