UK Industrial Restrictions on Labour Relations - Essay Example

UK Industrial Restrictions on Labour Relations Introduction There have been critical concerns for human rights protection since the late medieval times when slavery was a central focus for political debut. Several governments and the international community took a united front to condemn all forms of slavery, forced labour and disregard for human dignity. As a result, the world joined hands in drafting and ratification of the Declaration of Universal Human Rights (Gross and Compa 2009, 142). Since then, a lot has transpired in the field of human relations with respect to employment, governance as well as protection of human rights. In the United States for instance, workers are quite confident with the administrative structure and constitutional provisions all of which have well-articulated the freedom to protest forced labour or employment disputes. A similar milestone has been achieved across Italy, France and Germany where the respective constitutions have effectively outlined the rights of employees to seek industrial action (Pennings, Konijin and Veldman 2008, p.313). Such provisions are actionable where there are reasonable grounds to believe that some employment disputes have not been amicable addressed by the employer. To that end, this paper take a critical examination of the existing restrictions incorporated in the UK laws. In additions, it provides a succinct overview of the past and present instances of industrial actions with a view to unravel how the UK government have always handles such conflicts. On the other hand, this paper looks at the legal provisions that directly deter the pursuit of human rights through retrogressive provisions for of strikes and industrial action. With this at hand, the parp aims at providing a deeper understand on the difficulties experience by workers and how much their rights are denied by legal instruments of statutory law. Industrial Relations and the UK laws Contrary to common practice, the UK has demonstrated significant laxity in promoting exclusive protection of human rights as stipulated in the European Convention on Human Rights. Specifically, the laws governing the entire United Kingdom are all statutory provisions with no written constitution. In addition, the UK government and the bicameral legislative system believe that all actions of the multitude must be controlled to ensure peace and vigilant administration (Geyer, Mackintosh and Lehmann 2005, p.137). For that reason, the legislature has since passed resolutions and Acts of Parliament that are essentially retrogressive to the freedom from forced labour or slavery in general. Ideally, the UK laws are strict in nature and most of them empower the government and employers to take necessary course of action against potential or actual breach of employment contract. While the law provides for industrial intervention, it is cumbered with several restrictions that render the practice a perpetual impossibility (Gladstone and Wheeler 1992, p 158). Employers are allowed to dismiss their workers for breach of employment contract as opposed to addressing the issue in dispute. On the other hand, Trade Unions in UK are prohibited from supporting acts that might construe an inducement to breach employment contract or performance of such duties as appertain to the agreement between individuals and their employers (Gladstone and Wheeler 1992, p.35). Besides, the UK perceives strikes as an expressed act of breaking employment agreement while such actions ought to mean a suspended contract rather than breach. Consequently, employers are at liberty to suck striking workers on the basis of breach of contractual relations because of the notion that employees should exercise exclusive loyalty of their employers as per the contract agreement. Controversy of the UK law Bearing in mind that the Constitution of the United Kingdom is unwritten, the legislature has taken big strides to make laws that best suit the interest of the ruling regime and the prevailing economy. In the light, there are six specific limitations or restrictions the UK law imposes on the provisions for industrial intervention. These constraints are built on administrative understanding that each individual is personally liable for crimes committed by him subject to the statutes of common law (Lambert 2010, p.17). On the other side, where a person believes that his personal rights are interfered with by other individuals or authorities, the injured party has legal ground to file an action in the court of law. However, the decision is subjected to criminal law that definitely proscribes all forms of contemplated or actual crime. It is on such platforms that the UK law becomes controversial to the protection of human rights as argued by Gross and Compa (2009, p.151). Primarily, forced labour is a crime for which an employee has a right to seek legal redress. On the contrary, a breach of employment contract is sufficient cause to justify uncompensated dismissal. Where these two problems intersect, the UK administration is adamant to protect the weaker party arguing that the employee ought to honour his allegiance to the employer so as not to break the contract. Therefore, if such employees engage in activities including strikes that would make them impair the integrity of individual employment contracts the law shall take its cause as not to impose any liability on the employer for resultant dismissal (Geyer, Mackintosh and Lehmann 2005, p.164). Whereas the law acknowledges the importance of industrial intervention, it grants the government exclusives powers to sanction any perceive act of public incitements or induced motivation to breach a contract. In essence, that provision discourages individuals from participating in activities of an industrial action against employment disputes. Conversely, it purports that occupational strikes can trigger criminal activities by the protesting mob. Therefore, the criminal law of UK overrules the fundamental modalities and other generally acceptable diplomacies of industrial intervention through conventional mechanisms including go-slows, strikes or sick leaves. These controversies make the UK industrial intervention an irrelevant concept of employment relations, more so that there are specific restrictions that diminish the power of Trade Union in the UK (Lambert 2010, p.29). UK Restriction on Industrial Actions and Strike First and foremost sit has been argued that the UK does not need any more laws on restriction of strikes. Secondly, intellectual ad practical experience reveals that the country has exuded unprecedented disregard for the protection freedom to exercise their fundamental rights. In particular, the UK labour relations law is more concerned with institutional protocols than individual protection for forced labour and freedom from slavery (Pennings, Konijin and Veldman 2008, p.313). According to Gross and Compa (2009, p.144), strike is an outright breach of employee’s contract of employment singed at the beginning of the contract. Therefore, the law gives an employer a clean bill of health to effect the terms and conditions agreed upon to mitigate any such breach. In that manner an employer can legally outlay his workers for participating in a strike. The second restriction related to economic crimes of tort. Where a Trade Union authorises an industrial action of strike, the Section 219 of the UK Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1992 interprets such decisions as open conspiracy to induce a breach of individual business relations. Moreover, S219 (1)b posit that industrial interventions are a threat to the continuous performance of employment duties bestowed on an employee by his master. Thus, the application of industrial intervention is subjected to Section 220 where the employment relations must first be declared unlawful before a strike (Leisink 1992, p.88). Another restriction revolves around the residual criminal liability for conspiracy and control of protesting. The UK law suggests that protests are often associated with episodes of vandalism, hooliganism and reduced economic productivity. As such, there is no need to strike if the employment activities are perfectly lawful in line with Section 220 of the Act. It is also important to note that Section 226 demands for a public ballot before the Trade Union can authorise a strike. By that principle, it becomes economically unviable to solicit votes form indifferent populations whose rights are not protected by law if they take part in the contemplated protest. Or that reason, several strike motions have been dismissed by past government for lack of majority support by Union members (Lambert 2010, p.41). Apart from these, conventional statutes such as the ILO Regulations allow the Union for draw its by-laws and mode of asset utilization without undue influence whatsoever. Nevertheless, the UK government has continued to outlaw union indemnity advanced to members who suffer liability in the course of pursuing industrial interventions. In any case, the criminal law in UK directly prohibit union protection of its members from criminal acts committed in the course of striking. Thus Trade Unionists are discouraged from spearheading or joining strikes for fear of unprotected personal liability. If they are dismissed, the Union cannot maintain an action for unfair dismissal (Gross and Compa 2009, p. 173). In relation to Section 225, the international community and the ILO Committee of Experts condemned the limitations conferred by the UK Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1992. Similar practices has undermined the fight against slavery and forced labour. Thus the European Community unified a Charter in 1961 that categorically provides room for strike and industrial intervention without administrative interference or restrictions. Specifically, Articles 5 and 6 of the Europeans Convention of Human Rights clearly stipulate the rights to call for industrial action provided the method followed is consistent with the freedom of association, freedom from slavery and forced labour (Lambert 2010, p.27). On a different note, the UK laws have not given any condensations to the provisions of Article 11 of the Human Rights Act of 1998. Section 2 of the Act proscribes any restrictions to the exercise of human rights to free association, joint consolations and collective action. According to the ILO Convention 1987 Articles 2 and 3, every employee has a right to join and participate in independent activities of preferred labour organizations. Moreover, the 1957 report of the ILO Committee of Freedom of Association affirmed that industrial strike is a fundamental right of every Trade Union. These conventions do not auger well with the past and present restriction imposed by the UK government on the mode of addressing industrial disputes as observed by Ferner and Hyman (1998, p.24). Despite the mounting demands for change championed by the ICESCR, the UK community is yet to start amending the Trade Unions and Labour Relations Act 1992. However, in 2004 the UK legislature incorporated Section 238A into the Employment Relations Act 2004 to distinguish the right to claim damages for unfair dismissal for taking part in an industrial strike (Geyer, Mackintosh and Lehmann 2005, p.139). Nonetheless, these are not sufficient steps to ease the trade union intervention prospects in industrial disputes. Conclusion The UK Trade Union and Labour Relations remain restrictive and retrogressive to human rights and Trade Union actions. It revolves around the need to protect the government and employers from liability for unfair dismissal. Besides, the State is making very little efforts to substantiate undisputed protection of fundamental human right of freedom from forced labour and slavery. For that reason, there is undaunted need to develop Union friendly statutes that will empower the rights of unions and workers to pursue amicable settlement of labour disputes as provided by international conventions such ILO, ICESCR and the ECHR. References Ferner, A. and Hyman, R. 1998, Changing Industrial Relations in Europe, Wiley-Blackwell, Geyer, R. Mackintosh, A and Lehmann, K. 2005, Integrating UK and European Social Policy: The Complexity of Europeanization, London: Radcliffe Publishing, Gladstone, A. and Wheeler, H. 1992, Labour Relations in a Changing environment, Oxford: Walter de Gruyter Publishing, Gross, J. and Compa, L. 2009, Human Rights in Labour and Employment Relations: International and Domestic Perspectives, Cornell University Press. Lambert, R. 2010, The Labour Market and Employment Relations beyond the Recession: Industrial Challenges in the UK, [Online] Accessed 26 January 2012. Lecher, W. and Platzer, H. 1998, European Union and European Industrial Relations: Global Challenges, National Developments and Transnational Dynamics, London: Routledge. Leisink, P. 1999, Globalization and Labour Relations, London: Edward Elgar Publishing, Pennings, F., Konijin, Y. and Veldman A. 2008, Social Responsibility in Labour Relations: European and Comparative Perspectives, Alphen: Kluwer Law International. Read More