Current Industrial Action Laws Relating to Right to Strike (Research Paper Sample)

Current Industrial Action Laws Relating to Right to Strike
Right to strike can be generally defined as the legal protection of workers to take action against unreasonable terms of employment through withdrawal of services. The law normally protects the workers from being suspended or their contract of employment terminated on grounds of partaking in lawful strike. Legalization of Trade Unions in 1871 gave workers opportunity to address their socio-economic situations through collective bargaining. In 1906, Trade Dispute Act was introduced. It had a comprehensive provisions regarding right to strike, and trade unions were granted some form of immunity which was inexistence in previous years (Saville, 1996). With the coming of Conservative government under Margaret Thatcher in 1979, reforms were made to limit the rights of workers in regard to striking. Various amendments were introduced in legislations; therefore limiting the powers of trade unions and to a larger extent, right to strike. The Trade Unions and Labor Relations (Consolidation) Act of 1992, affirmed the ‘Golden Formula’ which had previously been introduced by Trade Dispute Act 1906.
The case of Taff Vale Railway Company v Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants (1901) set a judicial precedent that trade unions could actually be sued for economic damages caused by their actions. This case was however overruled through introduction of Trade Dispute Act of 1906. This legislation established some fundamental rights regarding the employees (Fairbrother, 2003). Economic torts can be divided into four categories; inducing breach of contract, causing loss by unlawful means, intimidation and conspiracy. The aforementioned case was a landmark within the context of economic torts vis-à-vis right to strike. Essentially, it established parameters which could be used to make trade union liable for damages arising from breach of contract of employment. Trade Dispute Act of 1906 provided immunity against possible economic liabilities arising from breach of employment contract, conspiracy or intimidation. Recently, the Court of Appeal; in the case of OBG Ltd vs. Allan, stipulated framework of economic tort arising from breach of contract. Whether this ruling will also apply to trade unions, can only be established through finding a consensus between common law and statutory law- however, the latter will most likely prevail.[Taff Vale Railway Company v Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants,1901] [UKHL 21,, 1 AC 1,, 2 WLR 920]
Initially, Trade Unions were not regarded as an independent or separate entity. On basis of this, individual members of Trade Unions would be liable for any damages for torts or breech of contracts. This was highly detrimental to the rights of workers to strike. Legislations introduced in 1870s to highlight the rights of workers to strike had a short life span. In 1880s, the general opinion of the court towards the rights of workers changed. Two landmark cases; Taff Vale Railway Company v Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants and Quinn v Leathem are perfect examples of how the courts perceived the rights of workers to strike. Immunity was adversely affected and this can be attributed to the fact that Trade Unions had started applying more vicious, aggressive and violent ways of addressing their issues.[ibid] [Quinn v Leathem]
With the introduction of The Trade Disputes Act of 1906, previously existing legislations which provided immunity to Trade unions were strengthened. This legislation was widely supported by the members of parliament; therefore, depicting the existing desire of the whole country. Fundamentally, the legislation stated that it was still lawful for a group of people to strike on basis of addressing their employment issues and this right was solely based on the fact that the stated group has equal rights as an individual person (McIlroy, 1995). With the advent of this legislation, previously existing cases laws such as Quinn v Leathem were overruled. This sort of immunity came to be known as 'the Golden Formula'. Section 2 of Trade Dispute Act of 1906, made it lawful for individual workers to engage in picketing; and his or her actions, as long as they did not involve use of violence, was fully protected by the law.[ibid]
Trade Union Act 1965 had provisions which further empowered trade unions. Immunities against legal actions were clearly outlined. Through this Act, judicial precedent set by Rookes v Barnard (1965) was reversed.  Legal against trade union from breach of contract or tortious liabilities arising from strikes could not be commenced. This Act seemed to uphold collective bargaining; therefore, giving workers right to strike (Deakin & Morris, 2012). With the coming of Labor government in early 1970s, trade union’s immunity from liability was boosted. The government amended Trade Union & Labor Relations Acts of 1974 and 1976 to provide more immunity to the trade unions. This boosted not only the right of workers to strike but also immunity of trade unions from being sued for economic torts arising from strikes. Other rights such as those pertaining to on health, safety, earnings and pensions were also addressed.
Before conducting a worker’s strike, Trade Unions are required by the law to conduct a form of election whereby members can democratically vote for or against the strike. This legal provision was introduced by Trade Union Act 1984, when the Conservative government was in place. Trade Union and Labor Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 was introduced to consolidate any differences between previously existing labor laws and those pertaining ballot voting. With the coming of Labor government in 1997, ballot voting process was simplified through amendment labor legislations. Trade Union Act 2016 introduced and amended several provisions regarding balloting. Essentially, it introduced a provision which demands that he main provisions of the Act: 40% of the people voting through balloting, should favor industrial strike in public sector such as health, education and transport through voting. There cases which have set a precedent in regard to balloting. For instance, in the case of Metrobus Limited vs. Unite, the court ruled that union must give out results soon after total tallying, and unnecessary delay should be avoided.
There are several laws governing picketing. Fundamentally, picketing is allowed by the statutes. Under common law, the courts have stated that picketing could amount to criminal liability if it constitutes use of violence, trespass, harassment or nuisance. Section 220 the Trade Union and Labor Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Non-compliance with both statutory and common law provisions will not be protected by the immunity against legal suits. This means that picketing can attract both criminal and civil liabilities.
United Kingdom has ratified various inte...