Issue 2 SUMMER 2013 Free

Update

Campaign for Trade Union Freedom Centre for Labour and Social Studies

Institute of Employment Rights

TUC FRINGESunday, 8 September Branksome Suite, Bournemouth

International Conference Centre 7pm to 9pm

l Christine Blower general secretary, NUT l Bob Crow general secretary, RMT l Professor Keith Ewing president, IERl John Hendy QC vice president, CTUFl Len McCluskey general secretary, Unite the Unionl Chair: Carolyn Jones director, IERSponsored by Thompsons Solicitors Refreshments Provided

The fight for trade unionfreedoms, our legal right torepresent our members has

gone on for too long.It is fight we must win urgently. It

should be a matter of great shame thatin 21st Century Britain ordinary workingpeople can have such basic rightswithheld from them.

For more than three decades tradeunion freedoms have been cut away andcurtailed. The legacy of the Thatchergovernment – its unrelenting attack onthe lives of ordinary workers and theirfamilies – has lingered on into the 21stCentury.

Organised Labour, our most effectivetool for working people to achieve socialchange and improvements now faceslegal restrictions that apply to no otherorganisations in our society. At the sametime as successive governments haveshackled trade unions, they have beenderegulating and setting-freecorporations and the markets to wreakhavoc.

We now know that this growingimbalance has been bad for society andbad for the economy, causing thegreatest economic crash of all time.

Successive governments have beendetermined to silence the voice ofordinary workers.

Tragically, the Labour Party, the Partyour forefathers and foremothers createdto be the voice of organised labour,failed to ditch one single restriction ontrade unions introduced by the Tories.Worse still Tony Blair boasted that hisgovernment would “leave British law themost restrictive on trade unions in theWestern world”.

The result of this shameful collusionbetween our political elites has been: anever growing gap between rich and poor,a dramatic decline in the wealth thatgoes into the pockets of working peopleand capitalism brought to its knees byneo-liberalism left unchallenged andunchecked.

The fall in collective bargainingagreements nationally and across

sectors has been a key factor inincreasing inequality.

The International Labour Organisationsays countries with strong support forcollective bargaining have a significantlysmaller wage gap between those at thetop and those at the bottom. And yet thepast three decades have beencharacterised by rising inequality and alow wage economy.

Between 1975 and 2013 – the shareof our national income used to pay thewages of ordinary people fell from 65%to 53%. The total of UK workers coveredby collective bargaining is now 23%.

Thirteen years of Labour standing stillon trade union rights has led the way forthe Tory led Coalition restart their attackon employment rights just where theyleft off and we are moving backwardsonce again.

And the arrogance with which thisgovernment behaves can leave no one inany doubt about the magnitude of theattack we now face. Putting venturecapitalist Adrian Beecroft, who headsWonga.com, in charge of employmentrights was like putting Dracula in chargeof the blood bank.

The trouble is there is not one shredof evidence supporting Tory ideas. Wehave already seen Redundancy Noticecut in half 90 days to 45 – the tip of theiceberg if the Coalition gets its way. Theyare pushing ahead with the discredited‘shares for rights scheme’, whichemployment lawyers and employers saywon’t work.

Only the Coalition could tell you thatyou can create jobs by makingemployment more insecure and lettingbosses sack at will.

It is the politics of the madhouse. Thatis why I and Unite supports theCampaign For Trade Union Freedom. n

‘We must winthe fight fortrade union

freedom’Len McCluskey speaking

at the launch rally of the Campaign

for Trade Union Freedom

After the fringe celebrations will continue at the GFTU Fish and Chip supper and song night. Banner Theatre, First of May Band,Grace Petrie, Robb Johnson and the audience. Political song at its best, Devonshire Suite, Marriott Highcliff Hotel, 8 till late.

UNISON wins a legal battle fo UNISON has won a four yearbattle for pay justice which couldaffect around 800 union membersworking for the London Fire andEmergency Planning Authority(LFEPA). The union challenged theLFEPA’s decision not to honourthe third year of an agreed paydeal that would have given fireand rescue staff a 2.5% pay risein April 2009.

The claim could be worth hundreds ofthousand pounds as the 2.5% payincrease is payable from April 2009onwards for four years. It will have a

cumulative or compounding effect onpast and future increases. The LEFPAcould have remedied this easily bypaying the amount agreed between theunion and employer. The employer’sintransigence saw some low paidworkers earning as little as £13,627 perannum missing out on the agreed payincrease.

The case Ms Anderson & ors andPhillips and ors v London Fire &Emergency Planning Authority went tothe Court of Appeal in London on 13March 2013. The unanimous decision infavour of the union states, “In my

judgment, it means that in that year theemployees would receive an increase of2.5% or NJC plus 1%, whichever wasthe greater. Looking at the matterobjectively, no other meaning made orwould have made industrial sense. Noother meaning would have representeda three-year deal which the Unionswould have contemplated and,objectively, that must have been obviousto the Employer”.

Dave Prentis, general aecretary ofUNISON, said: “When employers makean agreement with UNISON we expectthem to stick to it. Trust is an integral

by John Hendy QC

A fundamentalproblem with theBritish economyis the dramaticdrop in the valueof wages. As wellas painfullydiminishing thestandard of living

for most people (while the richenjoy ever increasing wealth) thishas depressed demand causingthe loss of jobs, loss of taxrevenue and one of the worstperforming economies in Europe.

Britain is now as unequal as it was atthe end of the nineteenth century withall the repulsive consequences: unequallife expectancies, lack of social mobility,unemployment, drugs, crime – and allthe social costs that go with them.

A vital way to re-establish the value ofwages, decrease inequality, andstimulate job creation, is to reinstatesectoral collective bargaining – that iscollective bargaining on an industry byindustry basis. In this book we seek to

demonstrate that extensive collectivebargaining coverage of this kind wasgovernment policy for 75 years (untilThatcher and successive neo-liberalgovernments) and was the techniqueadopted in this country, Europe and theUS to end the depression of the 1930s.

The current depression could beended in the same way.

‘Britain is now asunequal as it was atthe end of the 19thcentury’

Furthermore, as we try to explain,collective bargaining is the only way ofgiving workers an effective voice in theworkplace, giving them sufficient powerto prevent injustice at work and, mostimportant, fulfilling the UnitedKingdom’s binding international legalobligations to promote collectivebargaining. The failure to comply with itsinternational legal obligations has madethe UK a repeated international lawbreaker for the last 30 years, as the

international bodies have consistentlyfound.

The crushing of collective bargainingin Britain which saw coverage fall from82% of workers in 1980 to 23% today(and falling) is the result of the toxicpolicies of neo-liberalism which must bereversed. Yet in Europe, as Keith Ewingand I summarise *, the Troika are nowtrying to impose the same lethalmedicine in the name of austerity toundermine collective bargaining inEuropean states though over 60% ofEuropean workers still enjoy theprotection of collectively agreed termsand conditions, and, in the countries ofwestern and northern Europe coverageaverages about 80%.

John Hendy QC is vice president of theCampaign for Trade Union Freedom n

* Reconstruction after the crisis: amanifesto for collective bargainingby Keith Ewing and John Hendy isavailable for £10 from IER, 4th Floor,Jack Jones House, 1Islington, Liverpool,L3 8EG.

A Manifesto for Collective Bargaining

Regular news updates, comments,articles and downloads onemployment rights, trade unioncampaigning, fighting forworkplace rights in the UK,Europe and globally appear on ourregularly updated website.

Affiliations can also paid on line atwww.tradeunionfreedom.co.uk

Follow the Campaign For TradeUnion Freedom on Twitter@unionfreedom

law at work

by Carolyn Jones

I was recentlyreminded of thesaying, ‘Becareful what youwish for”‘. I’veoften argued forthe redistributionof working timeon the basis that

some people were killingthemselves with overwork whileothers were literally killingthemselves because of a lack ofwork.

If working hours were redistributed, theargument went, the intensification ofwork would be reduced and fewerworkers would face burn out. Morepeople would be employed and the statewould pay less in benefits and collect

more through tax. And more. Space could be made

within the labour market for the young toget on the jobs ladder and for the old toretire gradually and with dignity. If workinghours were handled smarter, time couldbe invested in research and developmentand in training people in the new skillsrequired to keep the economy turning.

Looking at the labour market today wesee that working time has indeed beenredistributed but not in the progressiveway envisaged. Witness the rapid rise ofzero hour contracts. These “contracts”offer little in the way of dignity, economicsecurity, job progression or training.

People are being forced into jobs thatare increasingly characterised byminimum rights and maximum insecurity.Willing workers wait to be told how manyhours they will work week by week, evenday by day. How can such workers rent

homes, start families, think aboutmortgages when they can’t evenguarantee that they will earn enough topay for food and essential bills week byweek.

The practice is barbaric. Yet it’s apractice that is infecting major sectors ofour economy from care workers touniversity lecturers, from IT experts tonurses.

The use of zero hour contracts is not aredistribution of working time. It’s not alife style choice offering flexibility andfreedom. It’s an intense form ofexploitation that needs to be challengedbefore the practice is “normalised” anyfurther.

In the US workers employed in fastfood outlets that use these exploitativemethods are taking to the streets andfighting back. In the UK, unions need tobe at the front of a similar fightback.

So, now I want to be more specificabout what I wish for. I want to see jobscreated not on the terms of anexploitative employer but by agovernment determined to deliver aneconomic strategy that leads to growthand security. I want workers to have avoice at work and unions to have a seatat a national negotiating table that setswages and hours across sectors of theeconomy. I want to see a LabourGovernment committed to introducing aprogramme of economic reconstructionthat has at its very heart a newframework for collective bargaining. Butmore importantly I’m prepared to standup and fight to ensure my wish becomesa reality. Carolyn Jones is director of the Instituteof Employment Rights n

or pay and justice

No MMore zerohours contracts

part of any negotiations and I ampleased that we have been able todeliver pay justice to our members at theLFEPA. Times are tough for many publicservice workers without being denied apay rise that they are entitled to.

“It has taken a four year legal battle towin this case. Without the union to fightthis case the employers would have gotaway with a gross injustice and membersand their families would have lost out.”

Tony Phillips, UNISON LFEPA branchsecretary, said: “Fire and Rescue staffare delighted with the successful

outcome of this case. We hope that itwill show unscrupulous employers thatthey cannot get away with reneging onwritten agreements with trade unionswhen they no longer suit them”.

UNISON is warning that the judgmentcould be used as precedent to scotchattempts by employers to take an undulytechnical approach when applyingcollective agreements. It is also anauthority for collective agreementshaving enforceable rights for workers.

The employer in this case tried to takea literal approach to the wording of the

industrial agreement to save its wagesbill. The Court of Appeal said theemployer’s argument ‘makes no realsense’.

* The Employer argued that (a) it wasno more than an agreement to agree; (b)it was “incomplete”; (c) it was uncertain;and (d) there was no intention to createlegal relations. Although the provisions inrelation to 2007 and 2008 had been aptfor incorporation, the wording for 2009was not of that quality.

** LFEPA staff received a 1% payincrease in 2012/13 n

by Mick Carty

Struck Out, a recently publishedreport by the Tories in the LondonAssembly, proposes an assault ontrade union rights across LondonUnderground and potentiallyacross the public sector in London.

Whilst the report restates GLA Torypolicy of requiring a turnout for any ballotof 50% + 1 of eligible voters it goesmuch further by setting out threeproposals for changes in law which wouldhave to be legislated for by Parliamentand which all ban strike action.

The first policy proposal is for BindingArbitration in the style of New York’sTaylor Law which shows that this is not anissue for London Underground workersalone. New York’s Taylor Law wasintroduced following a number of subwaystrikes in the American city and prohibitsall public employees in New York fromstriking. Instead a system of bindingarbitration is used, which both sides mustaccept the judge’s decision.

Workers who refuse to accept thearbitration decision will then be fined anadditional days wage for each day ofstrike – and their democratically electedrepresentatives can face imprisonment.

The second policy proposal in thedocument is Binding PendulumArbitration in which strike action alsobecomes illegal but where the judgecannot seek to order a compromise butmust accept the position of either theemployer of the trade union in full.

The Tories in the Assembly believe thatthis would incentive both the unions and

the employers to make “reasonabledemands and find a reasonablecompromise”, but also incentive workers“to choose to belong to a reasonableunion” as opposed to “an extremist unionthat pushes for the greatest possiblewage increase”.

Given that the document onlyattributes such “extremist” characteristicsto the National Union of Rail, Maritime &Transport Workers (RMT) it is clear thatthe attack is not only on the trade unionrights and freedoms but also attacks theparticular style of democratic and classorientated trade unionism that themembers of RMT support.

The final proposal is for a CompleteBan which would mean that a LondonUnderground worker who went on strikewould be sacked for breach of contract,in a similar fashion to the police forceand Armed Forces.

It is important to note that each ofthese proposals were supported by only16% of those surveyed by the GLA Tories.

Two alternatives are also highlightedincluding the introduction of driverlesstrains, and increasing the number ofLondoners who work from home. Thesecond idea is to reduce the “cost toLondon’s economy of a day of strikeaction”.

The final recommendations are tolegislate for the following:1 Ban strike action on LondonUnderground2 Replace the right to strike with a rightto binding pendulum arbitration3 Require a minimum of 50% + 1 of alleligible trade union members to vote in

favour of binding pendulum arbitration forit to happen.

GLA Tories claim that “this would bringtogether the best of the various optionsin order to remove the threat of strikeaction” and “stop the practice of a smallminority dictating a confrontationalapproach to negotiation”.

The International Labor Organisationhas previously commented on bindingpendulum arbitration when introduced bythe Canadian government to attackpostal workers. The Expert Committee ofthe ILO stated: “the Committee is boundto recall that it has always recognized theright to strike by workers and theirorganizations as a legitimate means ofdefending their economic and socialinterests, and that the right to strike maybe restricted or prohibited: (1) in thepublic service only for public servantsexercising authority in the name of theState; or (2) in essential services in thestrict sense of the term, that is, servicesthe interruption of which would endangerthe life, personal safety or health of thewhole or part of the population” and“considered that whatever the case maybe, and however unfortunate suchconsequences are, they do not justify arestriction of the fundamental rights offreedom of association, unless theybecome so serious as to endanger thelife, safety or health of part or all of thepopulation”.

It is also clear that the introduction ofsuch legislation in Britain would be aclear violation of the government’sobligations under international humanrights law. n

victory

The Campaign for Trade Union Freedom is sponsored by 25 national trade unions and ov er 200branches, trades councils and individuals and financed solely by supporters fees from trade union bodies andindividuals. By becoming a supporter you or your organisation show your agreement with the call to repeal theanti-trade union laws, and aid the Campaign’s fight. Please make cheques payable to Campaign, for TradeUnion Freedom and send to the CTUF, 4th Floor, 1 Islington, Liverpool, L3 8EG Donations are gratefully received.

London Underground union rights attacked

Union / TUC:National/Region/Branch:Name (of Secretary):Address:

Email:We may contact you with information about the Campaign.

Affiliation costso National Unions - 100,000 pus £650o less than 100,000 £150o Regional Unions £75o Union Branches - 500 or more £75 o Union Branches - less than 500 £35o Associations of TUCs £35o Trade Union Councils £35o Strike Committees, non-union £15organisations & individuals