Yesterday, Rishi Sunak unveiled new anti-strike legislation.
This enforces “minimum services levels” during industrial action. The legislation is set to cover key public sectors including the NHS.
This follows a change in the law in July 2022 which enabled businesses to provide skilled agency workers to fill staffing gaps caused by industrial action.
Coming into effect in just a matter of weeks, as stated on the gov website, the legislation gives managers in ambulance services, education, health care, and rail the power to fire employees if minimum levels are not met.
 |
Get our essential weekday HR news and updates.
|
If Labour becomes the next Government, Kier Starmer has stated that he would repeal the anti-strike legislation.
The government’s decision to bring forward legislation to stop strikes has been criticised by employment expert, Julia Kermode of IWORK, who described the move as “draconian”, predicting it to “exacerbate an already ugly situation.”
HRreview has gathered expert commentary on what this new legislation means for workers’ rights.
Tom Long, Employment Partner and industrial relations specialist at law firm, Shakespeare Martineau, said:
“Whilst this is the latest attempt in a series of governments since 2010 to restrict the right to strike, the proposed legislation could have a relatively short lifespan. Aside from the fact that trade unions will be unlikely to accept it without a fight, it may take months to go through parliament. Even if passed, the Labour Party have been vocal about their intention to repeal it if they are elected in the next two years.
“Designed to protect minimum service levels, the current legislation is limited to what the Government considers “important public services”, such as nurses and the fire service, so will have no immediate effect on businesses outside of these areas. However, it could be argued that those “important public services” are areas where the Government could be held responsible for the knock-on effects of strike action, for example, delayed operations and hospital appointments.
“This announcement will naturally garner a lot of attention, especially with the country in the midst of strike action across a number of sectors. However, with trade unions already threatening a potential legal challenge through the courts, it remains to be seen whether the Prime Minister’s bold plans will translate into reality.”
David Hopper, Employment Partner at law firm Lewis Silkin, comments on the anti-strike law:
“This new legislation won’t resolve the current disruption across the country. It will take time to be enacted and there is no guarantee that it will make it past the House of Lords, as only transport strikes are covered by the government’s 2019 manifesto commitment to introduce minimum service levels.
“If it does become law, it may still not be effective without numerous additional sets of regulations, industry agreements and even court rulings, which would actually set the particular minimum standards. Even then, unions can be expected to resist the new requirements and will almost certainly challenge any enforcement action against them on human rights grounds. Minimum service levels also actually risk prolonging strikes, by preventing unions from being able to generate sufficient leverage by causing disruption to secure their demands.
“The Labour Party has already promised to repeal the legislation if enacted. So, with the polls, as they are, these reforms may be of no lasting significance in any event”
Julia Kermode, Founder of IWORK, comments on anti-strike legislation:
“The government seem hellbent on eroding workers’ rights. This draconian law is a worrying step in the wrong direction and will only exacerbate an already ugly situation. People don’t take the decision to strike lightly. They are facing severe financial problems and industrial action is a last-ditch attempt to get their voices heard and be paid what they deserve. The government needs to focus on solutions rather than pandering to those of us who may be inconvenienced by disruption.
“Temporary workers should also tread carefully in all of this. The recent law change allowing agency workers to plug skills gaps created by strikes could result in temps unwittingly walking into hostile environments. Real care needs to be taken in informing temps of the situation before they start these roles. Fail to do this and temps will walk out too, and these vital public services grind to a halt.”
Amelia Brand is the Editor for HRreview, and host of the HR in Review podcast series. With a Master’s degree in Legal and Political Theory, her particular interests within HR include employment law, DE&I, and wellbeing within the workplace. Prior to working with HRreview, Amelia was Sub-Editor of a magazine, and Editor of the Environmental Justice Project at University College London, writing and overseeing articles into UCL’s weekly newsletter. Her previous academic work has focused on philosophy, politics and law, with a special focus on how artificial intelligence will feature in the future.
- Amelia Brand
- Amelia Brand
- Amelia Brand
- Amelia Brand
