Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T15:21:17.122Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Strikes and the Individual Worker—Reforming the Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2009

B. W. Napier
Get access

Extract

The government's recent Green Paper “Trade Unions and Their Members” contains several radical proposals for the reform of labour law, among them the suggestion that no union member should be subject to penalties by his trade union for disobedience to the union's call to take strike action. This proposal is based partly on a philosophy of committed individualism—everyone has a right to decide to work whatever a trade union has to say about the taking of industrial action—and partly on the government's concern over the well-publicised sanctions which unions such as the N. U. M. and the N. U. J. have recently imposed on members who have rejected official calls to participate in industrial action. The suggestion is made at a time when the actual impact of strikes (measured in terms of working days lost) is at its lowest point for twenty years and at a stage when, as one commentator has observed, “[t]he trend in this area of law, as developed in the courts and by Parliament, is towards strengthening the position of the union member who refuses to participate in industrial action”. Given its conviction that the taking of industrial action should be a matter left to individual choice (para. 2.22), it is hardly surprising that the government appears to view sympathetically the possibility of extending to members disciplined by their union (by expulsion or some lesser sanction) the right of complaint to an industrial tribunal.

Type
Articles
Information
The Cambridge Law Journal , Volume 46 , Issue 2 , July 1987 , pp. 287 - 302
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Cm. 95. H. M. S. O., 1987.

2 According to a contrary view, “a union member who declared he had a right as an individual to decide whether or not to abide by an official strike call to all members would be seen by most members as claiming something he had no right to—no right, that is, in terms of his position as a member of the union”. (Macfarlane, L. J., The Right to Strike (Penguin, 1981), p. 19Google Scholar.)

3 The number of working days lost through strikes, as measured by the average over 12 months ending November 1986, is the lowest since the 12 months ending August 1967: Department of Employment Gazette, February 1987, Labour Market Data.

4 McKendrick, E., “Trade unions and non-striking members” (1986) 6 Legal Studies 35, 49CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 See generally, Mesher, J. and Sutcliffe, F., “Industrial Action and the Individual” in Lewis, R. (ed.) Labour Law in Britain (Basil Blackwell, 1986)Google Scholar; Hepple, B. A., “Lock-outs in Great Britain” Rechtder Arbeit, 1980, Heft l, p. 25Google Scholar; Wedderburn, Lord of Charlton, “Industrial Relations and the Courts” [1980] I. L. J. 65Google Scholar; “Labour Law—From Here to Autonomy” [1987] 16 I.L.J. 1; Ewing, K. D., “The Right to Strike” [1986] I.L.J. 143Google Scholar; Bowers, J., “Industrial Action and the Individual Contract of Employment” [1986] 136 N.L.J. 65Google Scholar.

6 See, for a general comparison, the chapter by Blanc-Jouvan, X. on “The Effect of Industrial Action on the Status of the Individual Employee” in Aaron, B. and Wedderburn, K. W. (eds.) Industrial Conflict. A Comparative Legal Survey (Longman, 1972)Google Scholar. Probably the best-known examples of the explicit recognition of a right to strike are to be found in the Preamble of the French Constitution of 1946, as incorporated in the Constitution of 1958, and the similar provision in Art. 40 of the Italian Constitution of 1947. Note that a recent decision of the Cour de Cassation has significantly limited the scope of the right to strike under French law: Bouyssic, R. et Lyon-Caen, G., “Une nouvelle conception du droit de grève” Conclusions et note. Cass. Ass. plénièrc 4 juillet 1986. Droit Social, No. 11, 11 1986, p. 745Google Scholar. P. Verge, “Le Droit de Grève: Fondements et Limites” (Editions Yvon Blaises, Québec, 1985), contains much useful information on Canadian law and practice.

7 Under the criminal law there are other sanctions to consider, some of which are of general application (e. g. Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875, s.5) and some of which apply only to specific industries. Morris, G. S., “The Regulation of Industrial Action in Essential Services” [1983] 12 I.L.J. 69Google Scholar.

8 For an earlier discussion of the problems associated with moving towards a positive right to strike, see Trade Union Immunities, Cmnd. 8128, (1981), ch. 4.

9 Sim v. Rotherham M. B. C. [1986] I.R.L.R. 391; Cresswell v. Board of Inland Revenue [1984] 2 All E.R. 713; cf. Gorse v. Durham County Council [1971] 2 All E.R. 666; Welbourn v. Australian Postal Commission (1984) A.L.R. 669; Napier, B. W., “Aspects of the Wage Work Bargain” [1984] C.L.J. 337Google Scholar.

10 Simmons v. Hoover Ltd. [1977] I.C.R. 61.

11 National Coal Board v. Galley [1958] 1 W.L.R. 16. Sec too the remarks made in Barretts and Baird (Wholesale) Ltd. v. Institute of Professional Civil Servants [1987] I.R.L.R. 3, concerning the possible liability in tort which may fall upon individual strikers for economic loss consequent upon strike action.

12 Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations 1965–1968, Cmnd. 3623 (1968), para. 936ff. The rationale for this approach goes back to Kahn-Freund's, writing in The System of Industrial Relations in Great Britain (Flanders, and Clegg, (eds.), Blackwells, 1952Google Scholar. ch. 2).

13 [1964] A.C. 1129 at 1204.

14 Burdett-Coutts v. Hertfordshire County Council [1984] I.R.L.R. 91. Where strike notice takes the form of a formal resignation from employment, and the notice given is no less than is required under the contract, the position may conceivably be different. Foster, K., “Strikes and Employment Contracts” [1971] 34 M.L.R. 275CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Foster, K., “Strike Notice: Section 147” (1973) 2 I.L.J. 28Google Scholar; O'Higgins, P., “Strike Notices: Another Approach” (1973) 2 I.L.J. 152Google Scholar.

15 Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, s. 62.

16 Faust v. Power Packing Casemakers [1983] I.R.L.R. 117. Similar (but not identical provisions) apply in the case of a lock-out. For discussion of the differences between strike and lock-out, see Express & Star Ltd. v. Bunday [1986] I.R.L.R. 477.

17 Cruikshank v. Hobbs [1977] I.C.R. 725.

18 E.P.C.A., S. 151(5), (6)(b); Schedule 13, para. 15.

19 Social Security Act 1975, s.19(1) (as amended by Social Security Act 1986, s. 44); Supplementary Benefits Act 1976, s.8 (as amended by Social Security Act 1980). Partington, M., “Unemployment, Industrial Conflict and Social Security” [1980] I.L.J. 243Google Scholar; Bowers, J. and Duggan, M., “Unemployment Benefit and Strikes—the New Law” (1987) Law Society's Gazette 884Google Scholar. The arguments for and against withholding supplementary benefit from strikers are set out in Ogus, A. I. and Barendt, E. M., The Law of Social Security (2nd ed., Butterworths, 1982) pp. 500–503Google Scholar.

20 E.P.C.A., s. 13(3).

21 Wages Act 1986, s.l(5)(e).

22 E.P.C.A., s. 92(l), s. 82(2).

23 Dunn, S. and Gennard, J., The Closed Shop in British Industry (Macmillan, 1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, ch. 3.

24 Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Co. v. Veitch [1940] A.C. 435, 463 per Lord Wright; cf. Collymore v. A. -G. [1970] A.C. 538, 348 per Lord Donovan. In the words of Kahn-Freund, , “the strike is the ultimate sanction without which collective bargaining cannot exist” (Labour Relations, Heritage and Adjustment, (O.U.P., 1979), p. 77)Google Scholar.

25 This point is forcibly made by England, G., “Loss of Jobs in Strikes: the Position in England and Canada Explained” (1976) 25 I.C.L.Q. 583CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26 Kahn-Frcund, O. and Hepple, Bob, Laws Against Strikes (Fabian Research Series 305. 1972). ch. 3Google Scholar: Donigcn, P. Hocfer-van “The Right to Strike within the Framework of the I.L.O.” (1977) 24 Netherlands International Law Review 109Google Scholar.

27 See also Convention Number 98 (1949) concerning the Application of the Principles of the Right to Organise and to Bargain Collectively, which similarly stops short of explicit recognition of any right to strike.

28 See Valticos, N.. International Labour Law, (Kluwer. 1979). p. 86CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jenks, C. Wilfred. The International Protection of Trade Union Freedom (Stevens, 1957), pp. 369ffGoogle Scholar. The views of the I.L.O.'s Committee on Freedom of Association on the extent of the right to strike can be discovered from the digest of their decisions. The third edition of this digest, covering the period to 1984. can be found in R. Blanpain (cd.) International Encyclopedia for Labour Law and Labour Relations (Kluwer). vol. “Case Law”, paras. 360ff.: I.L.O., , International Labour Standards (Geneva. 1978). pp. 74–75Google Scholar.

29 Laws Against Strikes (above), p. 16.

30 See O'Higgins, P., “The Right to Strike—Some International Reflections” in Carby-Hall, J. R. (ed.), Studies in Labour Law (MCB Books, 1976), p. 110Google Scholar; O'Higgins, P. “International Standards and British Labour Law” in Lewis, R. (ed.) Labour Law in Britain (Basil Blackwell, 1986), pp. 572, 585Google Scholar.

31 Council of Europe, The European Social Charter—Origin, Operation, Result (Provisional edition, 1986), p. 18Google Scholar.

32 Conclusions VIII (1984), p. 99.

33 Conclusions IX (1986), p. 58.

34 Crouch, C., Trade Unions: the Logic of Collective Action (Fontana, 1982), p. 96Google Scholar. Much the same point is made by Fryer, Bob, “Trade Unionism, Public Policy and the Law” in Coates, K. (ed.). Freedom and Fairness. Empowering People at Work (Spokesman, 1986), pp. 63, 74Google Scholar. Note the doubts of Wedderburn in “Labour Law—From Here to Autonomy”, (n. 5, supra) p. 17.

35 Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Association 1965–1986, Cmnd. 3623 (1968).

36 Para. 935. See too Trade Union Immunities, pp. 88–90.

37 N.L.R.B. v. Mackay Radio&Telegraph 304 U.S. 333(1938), atp. 345. See Atleson, J. B., Values and Assumptions in American Labor Law (University of Massachusetts, 1983), ch. 1Google Scholar.

38 N.L.R.B. v. Washington Aluminum Co. 370 U.S. 9 (1962).

39 Weiler, P., “Striking a New Balance: Freedom of Contract and the Prospects for Union Representation” [1984] 98 Harvard Law Review 351, 388CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40 Arthurs, H. W., Carter, D. D., Glasbeek, H. J., Labour Law and Industrial Relations in Canada (Kluwer, 1981), p. 215Google Scholar; Christie, I., Employment Law in Canada (Butterworths, 1980), p. 272Google Scholar; C.P.R. v. Zambri (Royal York Hotel case) (1962) 34 D.L.R. (2d) 654.

41 Ewing, K. D. and Napier, B. W., “The Wapping Dispute and Labour Law” [1986] C.L.J. 285Google Scholar. See, especially, the letter from the legal advisers to News International Ltd., printed as an appendix to the article.

42 [1968] 2 Q.B. 710.

43 Paras. 936–952.

44 Simmons v. Hoover Ltd. [1977] I.C.R.; Haddow v. Inner London Education Authority [1979] I.C.R. 202.

45 Considerable discussion concerning the Labour Party's plans in this area has recently taken place. Sec. e. g., McCarthy, William, Freedom at Work: Towards the Reform of Tory Employment Laws (Fabian Society No. 508. 1985):Google Scholarindustrial Relations Legislation: Draft T.U.C./Labour Party Statement (June. 1986); K. D. Ewing “The Right to Strike” (n. 5. ), pp. 149 ff.

46 Op. cit., p. 11.

47 E. g. in the U.S.A., where “slowdowns” are classed as illegitimate because they amount to an attempt to require the employer to accept the employees on their own terms of employment. Gould, W.A Primer on American Labor Law (2nd ed., M.I.T., 1986). p. 99:Google ScholarElk Lumber Co. 91 N.L.R.B. 333(1950). In France, “Ic droit dc grève permet au salarié de suspendre sans le rempre son contrat de travail, mais nc I'autorisc pas. sous couvert de ce droit à exécuter son travail dans des conditions autrcs quc celle prévues par son contrat” (Soc. 23 mars 1953. cited in Camerlynck. Lyon-Caen, and Pélissier, . Droit du Travail (12th ed., Dalloz. 1984). p. 938)Google Scholar.

48 Barreus & Baird (Wholesale) Ltd. v. I.P.C.S. [1987] I.R.L.R. 3. 9. per Henry J.

49 See Bassett, P., Strike Free. New Industrial Relations in Britain (Macmillan, 1986)Google Scholar.

50 For a survey of different approaches, see Aubert, G., L'Obligation de Paix de Travail (Geneva, 1982)Google Scholar.

51 See, e. g., Torquay Hotel Co. Ltd. v. Cousins [1969] 2 Ch. 106; News Group Newspapers Ltd. v. S.O.G.A.T. '82 [1986] I.R.L.R. 337; Merkur Island Shipping Corporation v. Laughton [1983] I.C.R. 490.

52 The Freedom of Association Committee of the I.L.O. accepts that the right to strike exists only as a means of defending the economic interests of workers. P. Hoefer-van Donigen, op. cit., n. 26 supra, p. 115.

53 Sinay, H. and Javillier, J. -C., La Grève (2nd ed., Dalloz, 1984) pp. 299–302Google Scholar.

54 S. 184(3)(a)(vi).

55 S. 184(3)(c).

56 P. Verge, “Le Droit de Grève”, (supra), p. 47; Prodzinsky, F. vonFreedom of Association and Industrial Relations: a Comparative Study (Mansell, 1987), pp. 103–110Google Scholar.

57 Wedderburn, Lord of Charlton, “The New Politics of Labour Law” in McCarthy, W. E. J. (ed.) Trade Union Immunities (2nd ed., Penguin, 1985), pp. 497, 517Google Scholar.

58 [1987] I.R.L.R. 3.

59 Ibid., p. 5.

60 See McCarthy, Freedom at Work. pp. 46–47.

61 See the arguments considered in Longley v. National Union of Journalists [1987] I.R.L.R. 109.

62 Atiyah, P. S., Pragmatism and Theory in English Law (Hamlyn Lectures, 1987), p. 19Google Scholar.