John Hendy QC examines Britain's repressive anti-union laws and reports on new initiatives to campaign for changes.
Nations are subject to international law. Indeed, Mr Cook is prepared to bomb Iraq into compliance with UN resolutions. Moreover, he has made clear that the Government's trade with, and aid to, foreign countries should be dependent on their respect for international human rights law.
This Government's respect for international law does not however, apply at home. The right to freedom of association is a basic, fundamental, human right recognised in every international human rights instrument. It is breached by Britain's anti-trade union laws.
In February, the Home Secretary announced that the 1994 ban on prison officers' right to take industrial action would not be repealed; Merseyside dockers were sacked for crossing a picket line and the TGWU was not allowed in law the right to support them fully. Before the election, Tony Blair wrote: "The changes that we do propose would leave British law the most restrictive on trade unions in the western world" -- one election promise that New Labour has fulfilled.
In December, a UN Committee published its review of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966), which is binding on the UK. Article 8 of the Covenant protects freedom of association and the Committee held that Britain was breaching the Article by its failure to incorporate the right to strike into domestic law. British common law only recognises the freedom to strike; strike action is considered a fundamental breach of contract justifying dismissal. The Committee held this is not consistent with protection of the right to strike, and the proposal that employees who go on strike can appeal against unfair dismissal at a tribunal is not a satisfactory remedy. They should not ipso facto be regarded as having committed a breach of employment contract.
Last June, the Governing Body of the International Labour Organisation (an arm of the UN) ratified its Committee of Experts who had condemned (not for the first time) UK strike law as being in breach of ILO Convention 87, which is binding on the UK. The Council of Europe -- the UK was a founder member -- has a Social Charter (1961) that also includes the right to freedom of association. Article 6(4) -- ratified by the UK Government -- gives workers and employers the right to take collective action in cases of conflict of interest, and this includes the right to strike.
It is therefore not surprising that Britain's anti-strike laws (and other anti-union laws) have been condemned on several occasions by the Council of Europe at its highest levels: the Committee of Independent Experts, the Governmental Committee, and most notably in January 1997, when the Council of Ministers (which includes the UK) made a recommendation (the ultimate diplomatic sanction) that the UK's laws be brought into line with the Charter in relation to strikes and other matters.
The Conservative Government did not conceal their contempt for international law and workers' rights. GMB members at Magnet, CWU members at Critchley Labels, TGWU members at Mersey Docks and UNISON members at Hillingdon Hospital have all lost their jobs because of this Government's continued refusal to implement its international legal obligations. The trade union movement, the Labour Party's main funder, is entitled to demand respect for international laws and repeal of the anti-union laws.
Not surprisingly, trade unions are supporting a national conference called to "Reclaim our Rights -- Repeal the Anti-Trade Union Laws", to be held in London on 28th March. A successful repeal will mean the removal of laws that many British lawyers (even fat-cats) now feel embarrassed to earn a living from as these laws are themselves breaches of international law.
previous article · March '98 index of LLB · write to LLB · LLB home page · next article