New law, minimum service level must run on strike days

[Snow1964]

Government has just published

The legislation will mean:

• a minimum service level must be in place during transport strikes – if this is not delivered, the unions will lose legal protections from damages
• employers will specify the workforce required to meet an adequate service level during strikes and unions must take reasonable steps to ensure an appropriate number of specified workers still work on strike days
• specified workers who still take strike action will lose their protection from automatic unfair dismissal

The bill will set out the legal framework to allow minimum service levels to not only be set across the entire transport sector, but also implemented and enforced. The specific details of how minimum service levels will apply to transport services will be set out in secondary legislation in due course after a public consultation.

The intention of the legislation is that relevant employers and unions agree a minimum service level to continue running during all strikes over a 3-month period. If such a level cannot be agreed, an independent arbitrator – the Central Arbitration Committee – will determine the minimum number of services.

The bill will undertake its first reading today. The legislation is expected to come into force on transport services across the country in 2023 and follows similar rules already in place in countries across Europe, including France and Spain.

• law will ensure that transport services keep running during strike action
• the bill will keep Britain moving, allow businesses continuity of some services and allow passengers to still go to work, school and medical appointments
• delivers on Prime Minister’s commitment to introduce the legislation within first 30 days of Parliament sitting

It appears the minimum service level will be set by a Central Arbitration Committee

New bill to keep Britain moving during transport strikes

Transport Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill will ensure some transport services still run during strikes.

www.gov.uk

 

[66701GBRF]

I wonder if this will now increase the frequency and timings of strikes going forward up until this law comes in? Sort of a last chance saloon type thing.

 

[Gloster]

Unless there is more to it than this, you are forcing people to go to work. Have we ever had such a law in this country in peacetime?

I would suspect that it would be in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights, but plenty of Conservatives would like to leave that. Being able to go off in a huff after being severely criticised by the ECHR would suit them.

 

[SteveM70]

Bullet point 1 - “minimum”

Bullet point 2 - “adequate”

So which is it?

 

[pdeaves]

Hmmm, I see potential for a spike in 'calling in sick' incidents on strike days. There will be genuine cases that need to be treated fairly.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Unless there is more to it than this, you are forcing people to go to work. Have we ever had such a law in this country in peacetime?

Is that any different in principle from requiring any person who signs any other (legal and reasonable) contract to honour whatever they have agreed to do by signing that contract?

After all, as far as I'm aware, no-one in the UK is forced to seek employment in the rail/public transport industry - people generally do so because they wish to work in that industry. If someone feels that they no longer wish to work on the basis of the pay and conditions they had agreed, then I would assume there is nothing to stop them from resigning and seeking alternative employment.

 

[Thirteen]

I'd be surprised if this actually goes this parliament session given how chaotic things are.

Haven't the unions already said MSL aren't wanted by the TOCs?

I do think Labour are playing with fire saying they'll scrap the current TU laws.

 

[Starmill]

Unless there is more to it than this, you are forcing people to go to work. Have we ever had such a law in this country in peacetime?

I would suspect that it would be in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights, but plenty of Conservatives would like to leave that. Being able to go off in a huff after being severely criticised by the ECHR would suit them.

It is likely that based on the announcement that, in drafting, the law would have the effect of disapplying the lawful protection for breaching a contract of service if certain conditions are met (i.e. the normal ballot requirements for "approved" strike action).

As such, nobody would be physically forced to work if they didn't want to, and hypothetically strike action could still take place. It's just that if it did the lawful protection may not apply.

 

[66701GBRF]

If someone feels that they no longer wish to work on the basis of the pay and conditions they had agreed, then I would assume there is nothing to stop them from resigning and seeking alternative employment.

This is how wages stay still, or worse, erode with inflation. None of which is good for the economy.

 

[Thirteen]

It's not in the press release but I assume the increase in notice period and decrease in number of times anyone can strike is still in the bill.

 

[Peter Sarf]

My first thought are.

This must be aimed at keeping signal boxes open. That is a minority of striking staff that can cause all services over a covered route to cease regardless of how many drivers, guards etc choose to not strike.

I can guess that this will lead to more frequent strikes but where each strike is less severe. Not sure if that is worse/better for the customers or unions ?.

 

[Thirteen]

My first thought are.

This must be aimed at keeping signal boxes open. That is a minority of striking staff that can cause all services over a covered route to cease regardless of how many drivers, guards etc choose to not strike.

I can guess that this will lead to more frequent strikes but where each strike is less severe. Not sure if that is worse/better for the customers or unions ?.

I would imagine if MSL were introduced that we could see 3 months strikes on a weekly basis similar to what happened on the Night Tube which were inconvenient but weren't as disruptive.

 

[Falcon1200]

I would suspect that it would be in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights

Or not, given that other countries such as France and Spain already, apparently, have such a law?

 

[Watershed]

Unless there is more to it than this, you are forcing people to go to work. Have we ever had such a law in this country in peacetime?

It's not forcing anyone to go to work. It's removing the protection that striking workers currently enjoy from unfair dismissal, if the minimum service level isn't complied with. That protection is an exception to the basic principle that if you don't turn up to work, you can be fired.

You could have said exactly the same about laws requiring ballots to be held and majorities to be obtained for strikes to be called. Striking is not being made inherently illegal, it is being subject to additional conditions.

I would suspect that it would be in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights, but plenty of Conservatives would like to leave that. Being able to go off in a huff after being severely criticised by the ECHR would suit them.

Plenty of other European countries have introduced minimum service legislation for public transport, and indeed there have been numerous ECHR cases on this subject. Whilst some have succeeded in overturning individual laws, the basic principle hasn't been held to be unlawful.

Bullet point 1 - “minimum”

Bullet point 2 - “adequate”

So which is it?

Something which defines the minimum level of service that would be considered adequate, and thus lawful.

 

[Lost property]

I'd be surprised if this actually goes this parliament session given how chaotic things are.

Haven't the unions already said MSL aren't wanted by the TOCs?

I do think Labour are playing with fire saying they'll scrap the current TU laws.

Why would Labour be "playing with fire " scrapping current TU law?...given the party who are intent on scrapping TU laws inherited from better days when the UK was part of the EU is the current, in name only, Gov't. The same Gov't, who, over time have happily introduced legislation to erode workers rights, terms and conditions, in an attempt to impose even more control than they already have...otherwise called repression.

Please remember, industrial action, in any form, and with strikes being the ultimate resort, is not the first recourse, despite the headlines in the right wing media to imply otherwise, but very much the last when all other forms of negotiations have failed, usually due to entrenched obduracy on the part of management.

Repealing Tory anti TU laws is very appealing therefore.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Please remember, industrial action, in any form, and with strikes being the ultimate resort, is not the first recourse, despite the headlines in the right wing media to imply otherwise, but very much the last when all other forms of negotiations have failed, usually due to entrenched obduracy on the part of management.

So what if it's not the first recourse? In the end, strike action still means, people who have agreed to do a certain job deciding that they are not going to honour the agreements that they previously chose to sign - and in the process causing a lot of disruption to the lives of many people who have nothing to do with the dispute. That is ethically very dubious at best. If I, as a self-employed person, did that, the people who pay me to do work for them would quite rightly probably choose never to work with me again.

I appreciate that there is potentially a difficult power play involved with any employee-employer agreement, and there may sometimes be circumstances where an employer is being sufficiently unreasonable that strike action might be justified (for example, if the employer isn't sticking to its side of any employment agreements - but that doesn't seem to be the case in the current rail dispute). So some balance in the legislative framework is required. It seems to me that allowing strikes while requiring a minimum service level if the strikes take place is a fair balance.

 

[Peter Sarf]

So what if it's not the first recourse? In the end, strike action still means, people who have agreed to do a certain job deciding that they are not going to honour the agreements that they previously chose to sign - and in the process causing a lot of disruption to the lives of many people who have nothing to do with the dispute. That is ethically very dubious at best. If I, as a self-employed person, did that, the people who pay me to do work for them would quite rightly probably choose never to work with me again.

I appreciate that there is potentially a difficult power play involved with any employee-employer agreement, and there may sometimes be circumstances where an employer is being sufficiently unreasonable that strike action might be justified (for example, if the employer isn't sticking to its side of any employment agreements - but that doesn't seem to be the case in the current rail dispute). So some balance in the legislative framework is required. It seems to me that allowing strikes while requiring a minimum service level if the strikes take place is a fair balance.

It does occur to me that *IF* strikes are occurring that are hard to justify then it follows that new legislation will tie the hands of the unions.

 

[E27007]

Next move, ban Union membership in the Transport Industry..
Remeber GCHQ when membership of a Union became a dismissible offence?

 

[najaB]

Is that any different in principle from requiring any person who signs any other (legal and reasonable) contract to honour whatever they have agreed to do by signing that contract?

Yes.

No employment contract compels an employee to attend work. Outwith any rights during a labour dispute, the employee is always entitled to withhold their labour and the employer is entitled with withhold pay as a result and start disciplinary proceedings if the necessary thresholds have been met.

 

[Snow1964]

Or not, given that other countries such as France and Spain already, apparently, have such a law?

This statement is at start of Bill

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
Secretary Anne-Marie Trevelyan has made the following statement under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998:
In my view the provisions of the Transport Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill are compat- ible with the Convention rights.

The 24 page draft Bill is here, it looks like there are clauses modifying the Trade Union Acts

CONTENTS
1 Minimum service levels for transport strikes
2 Power to make consequential provision
3 Extent
4 Commencement and transitional provision
5 Short title
Schedule — Minimum service levels for transport strikes
Part 1 — Amendments to Part 5 of the 1992 Act: minimum service
specifications
Part 2 — Related amendments to the 1992 Act

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1112460/draft-transport-strikes-minimum-service-levels-bill.pdf

 

[takno]

Is that any different in principle from requiring any person who signs any other (legal and reasonable) contract to honour whatever they have agreed to do by signing that contract?

The loss of protection from dismissal for breach of contract isn't the key thing here. The key thing is making the union liable for damages. It's highly questionable whether that's in any way a reasonable or acceptable law.

A (possibly) interesting aside: what if another company made it impossible to meet minimum service levels by hiring all the staff away for better pay, or for that matter by giving all the staff food poisoning at a company party? Would they also be liable to pay damages to the impacted company? If so why not?

 

[Starmill]

The loss of protection from dismissal for breach of contract isn't the key thing here. The key thing is making the union liable for damages. It's highly questionable whether that's in any way a reasonable or acceptable law.

A (possibly) interesting aside: what if another company made it impossible to meet minimum service levels by hiring all the staff away for better pay, or for that matter by giving all the staff food poisoning at a company party? Would they also be liable to pay damages to the impacted company? If so why not?

Deliberately trying to give someone food poisoning is likely to be an offence. Hypothetically someone could be liable for criminal penalties therefore for doing that. Probably not a useful example.

 

[Sm5]

The loss of protection from dismissal for breach of contract isn't the key thing here. The key thing is making the union liable for damages. It's highly questionable whether that's in any way a reasonable or acceptable law.

i think its very reasonable and we need more laws like it.
You cannot shirk criminal responsibility, why can you shirk financial responsibility ?

If more financial accountability was attached to individuals, in this case collectives for their actions, more people might care more about doing their job with greater diligence, or finding a role that they are more comfortable with.

I’d imagine insurance may play a bigger role, but thats what its for.

 

[Annetts key]

This law, if it comes in is MORE likely to result in more strikes. NOT less.

Why? Because eventually the workers will get even more upset at the cause of the problem (poor industrial relations, primarily this is a failure of company management) and then won’t care about what the law says.

Just like you occasionally still get unofficial walk outs that completely stuff the affected company because there is absolutely no warning that an unofficial strike is about to happen…

 

[najaB]

If more financial accountability was attached to individuals, in this case collectives for their actions, more people might care more about doing their job with greater diligence, or finding a role that they are more comfortable with.

And if they are happy with the role but the employer acts unfairly?

 

[nr758123]

TPE can't meet minimum service levels even on non-strike days.

 

[Gloster]

One point about the way that basic services are maintained abroad when there is a strike. My understanding, although I have not been able to check completely, is that in many countries both sides are also bound by an arbitration agreement. If the union maintains the basic service, the employer is bound to concede what the arbitrator thinks appropriate, if anything. If the union doesn’t maintain the service, the employer is under no obligation to concede anything and may be able to sanction the union.

I have not read the details, but it would surprise me if this bill is so even handed.

There is also the question: who sets the level of service to be maintained? Could the employer say ‘all our normal timetable’?

 

[Thirteen]

The loss of protection from dismissal for breach of contract isn't the key thing here. The key thing is making the union liable for damages. It's highly questionable whether that's in any way a reasonable or acceptable law.

There have been times when the employer or a government have tried to sue the Trade Union or gone to the courts to prevent certain action. In New South Wales, the union wanted to turn off the Opal card reader in peak hours as part of their industrial action but were prevented from doing so due to a court injunction.

Now I don't think that could happen in the UK because the TOCs, Network Rail and devolved bodies would rightly be able to claim damages for lost revenues but it's one example.

 

[Royston Vasey]

Disgusting and unworkable attack on the right to strike. Who do you choose to force to work to make the minimum service? How do you force them?

Even the railways being entirely shut down for one day is not a matter of life or death, its damned inconvenient for a lot of people but no more.

I say this and I am not a railway employee.

 

[Thirteen]

The Bill may not getting assent straight away given how much chaos is going in Parliament although it's in the Tory Manifesto so it might just be pushed through before any potential election.