The Right to Organise (L8) Flashcards
What are the positive and negative aspects of the right to organise?
Positive aspect: the state must do something to protect it.
Negative aspect: challenges to the validity of closed shop agreements.
Agreements that in order to work in a certain industry, the trade union requires you to be a member.
This infringes of the negative right to NOT be a member of a trade union.
What are the specific, individual rights in the right to organisation?
Not to be refused employment (TULRA s137).
Not to be blacklisted (Blacklisting Regulations).
Not to be discriminated against.
What protections are available for the right not to be discriminated against, and who do they protect?
Workers, not to suffer detriment (TULRCA s146).
Employees, not to be dismissed (TULRCA s152).
Not to have ‘sweetener payment’ made (TULRCA ss145A-F).
Where an employer tries to bribe/convince an employee not to become a member of a trade union.
Introduced to comply with ECtHR judgment on the Wilson v Palmer case.
What does TULRCA s137(1) provide for refusal of employment?
It is unlawful to refuse a person employment:
because he is, or is not, a member of a trade union,
because he is unwilling to accept a requirement –
to take steps to become or cease to be, or to remain or not to become, a member of a trade union.
How does TULRCA s137(5) define ‘refusal’ of employment?
‘Refusal’ is defined very broadly:
Refusal to process application or enquiry.
Causing applicant to withdraw application.
Making offer of employment on wholly unreasonable terms.
Retracting offer of employment.
What does TULRCA s138 provide for refusal of employment?
Similar provision is applied to employment agencies.
What are the s140 remedies for refusal of employment?
Compensation and a (non-enforceable) recommendation.
What provision does s142 give us for compensation?
Awards of compensation can be made against third parties e.g. to a trade union seeking to enforce a closed shop agreement.
How does s137 limit refusal of employment protections?
‘Refusal of employment on grounds related to trade union membership’ does not refer to ‘union activities’.
What does Harrison v Kent County Council [1995] tell us about the scope of protection for refusal of employment?
Employment Appeal Tribunal: Employment Tribunal was wrong to draw a rigid distinction between membership of trade union and taking part in union activities.
Overruled in the Wilson case in the House of Lords.
Held that this is not what the legislation says so we can’t read it that way.
ECtHR held that taking part in trade union activities also deserves protection.
Interpretation of s137 in light of Wilson v UK.
What are the further issues around refusal of employment?
Concealing trade union membership / activities and dismissal –> s152.
Previous trade union activities.
Fitzpatrick v British Railways Board [1992].
- Protection covers both pre-employment and post-employment screenings.
How does TULRCA ss146-167 provide for protection against discrimination at work?
Once in employment, the worker/employee is protected from hostile acts by their employer on the grounds of:
Trade union membership.
Participation in trade union activities.
For making use of trade union services.
Note: once at work, the material scope here becomes broader…
What are the protections available against hostile acts, and to whom are they available?
Subject to detriment (s146).
- Workers and employees.
Dismissal (s152).
- Employees.
But detriment for workers can cover dismissal (s146(5)).
Being offered inducements (ss145A and 145B).
Incentives to not be a trade union member.
Kostal UK Ltd v Dunkley & Ors [2021] UKSC 47.
Note: no qualifying period of employment.
S146 sets out for protections against detriment. What does it say?
(as amended in 1999 and 2004):
Right not to be subjected to ‘detriment’ on grounds related to:
(a) Union membership.
(b) Union activities.
(ba) Making use of trade union services.
What protections are available against detriment?
(On activities) Mercer v Alternative Future Group Ltd & Anor [2022].
(On appropriate time) Brennan and Ging v Ellward (Lancs) Ltd [1976].
Act or omission.
Can amount to dismissal, but only for workers who are not employees (s146(5A)).
Remedies?
Declaration and compensation as court considers just and equitable in all the circumstances (s149).