The CIPD is recommending possible legislation requiring parties to public service disputes to enter an arbitration process prior to industrial action, with extreme measure including a blanket ban on certain strikes.
However, the report, which was written by employee relations adviser Mike Emmott, says the new rules can be avoided through building public sector leadership and management skills.
The paper highlights research from the CIPD’s quarterly Employee Outlook survey series, which shows:
Low levels of trust and confidence among public sector employees in senior management teams – 16% of public sector employees say they trust their senior leaders
54% of public sector staff agree most people today are not willing to lose pay by going on strike, compared to 47% in the private sector
More than four in ten employees are in favour of banning public sector workers involved in the delivery of essential services from striking
Responding to the CIPD’s call for the government to consider banning walk outs of workers in essential public services, Thomas Player, partner at international law firm Eversheds comments:
“In limited circumstances, there is already a ban on strikes in some essential services, for example, in the armed forces and the police. In addition, public sector prison officers have entered into an agreement with the Prisons Service not to strike.
“Putting to one side the obvious employee relations ramifications of extending a no-strike ban to other essential public services, there are legal risks associated with such a move. The European Convention of Human Rights provides for a right to freedom of association, including the right to join a trade union. Recent decisions from the European Court of Human Rights suggest that freedom of assembly may extend to include the right to strike. However, it should be noted that the right to freedom of assembly is not absolute; the Convention provides that the right can be restricted, for example, in the interests of public safety and health. In addition, the armed forces, police and some civil servants are excluded altogether.
“Unfortunately, very little guidance exists as to how these rights can be lawfully restricted, such as curtailing the right to strike. Therefore if the government were to seek to introduce further restrictions to the right to strike in essential public services, in light of the Convention rights that apply in the UK, it is probable that such changes would be vehemently opposed by the major public sector trade unions and would be likely to come up against legal pitfalls, including a European legal challenge.”
Although not militant by nature, I could not disagree more with the CIPD stance on the proposal to ban strikes. This government seems intent on breaking up the public sector. With 36 years service, and two and a half years away from my 60th birthday, I am faced with a pay freeze, threats to my NHS Pension, and should I be unfortunate to be made redundant, cuts in those payments too. Not having a choice over joining the NHS Pension scheme seems to have been overlooked by all reports, but we are being classed as leeches on society. I have not been in a union for eighteen years, but am seriously thinking about joining as no one else seems to be prepared to stand up for staff.
May be as just an Associate of the CIPD – despite being a Training Manager of some 26 years years membership (ITO, ITD, IPM and now CIPD) – I may not have been asked my opinion, but I think before CIPD makes such bold statements it should consult with it’s members more. There are other surveys available that this one should be compared to. Strikes are disruptive, costly, inconvenient and can generate high risks, but to take away basic rights given this governments unsupported policies is disgraceful.
Hear Hear, I am also a Chartered Member of CIPD and this certainly does NOT reflect my view.
As I’m also in the public sector my view is that CIPD should be turning it’s attention to the demoralised workforce caused by successive governments as well as this one’s threats!