1984 clauses designed to destroy the closed shop will be in force. This feature

Scan page 8

explains just what the law Till moon in noontian herchin uninn dicinline 6 ATıTe TAn TIntıTM fonden -UV-NUI-UGUY HU!UII PLU Is it true that you can't have closed shop unless you have a secret ballot?

What Tebbit actually says is that if an employer sacks a non-unionist in a closed shop situation, that dismissed worker will win a case at an industrial tribunal against the employer unless. the closed shop met the requirements laid down in Tebbit which demand a secret ballot.

What are the requirements in a secret ballot?

For the closed shop to be an authorised closed shop which will give legal protectior: you need an 80% majority of those entitled to vote. You need to have a similar ballot every five years, and in these subsequent ballots either 80% of those covered voting must hup actualle support the closed shop.

The Tory government claims a mandate to introduce this provision when it was itself elected by less than one-third of those actually voting.

But the Tories disregard for democracy goes even further. If you get the 80% majority, your closed shop is not binding against existing employees. Everybody who was entitled to vote in the ballot is entitled to decide whether to join the union or not.

In other words you take a ballot with a built-in antidemocratic hurdle almost impossible to get over, but if you still win, then it doesn't bind anybody anyway. Is that. quite right? What about new employees?

Fair comment. If you get your 80%, new employees ISTIE Ịo! unless they are able to show that they genuinely object on grounds of conscience or othes deeply held personal comiction to membership uf ate particular trade union(s) intoned Se i sorices can show a soon ast lose held objecside is the policies of a radiar union - its affiliBeg in De Lzoour Party, is sue back sajestines of irsmpoz PITEE Non-unionists can sue their employer if they are sacked but what about the union?

A worker sacked in a closed shop situation which does not meet Tebbit's requirements can take action against the employer or a shop steward, full time officer or union if they can show that the union brought pressure to bear to secure their sacking.

You have a closed shop. Bill Sykes rips up his union card. Having exhausted all means of persuasion, Nancy, the steward, says to management: "Bill's out or we're all out" . Management sacks Bill. Bill can now sue. both the company and Nancy. Even if he doesn't, the company can ask for Nancy to be joined to' the legal case.

And what about the awards that the tribunal can make against Nancy?

The tribunal cannot force the boss to take Bill Sykes back. They can award him large sums of compensation.

Bill will be entitled to a minimum award of £12,000 unless the tribunal feels he contributed towards his dismissal.

If the tribunal feels that Bill should be reinstated and the employers refuse (as they are entitled to), Bill is up. for a minimum of £17,000.

And here's the sting in the tail. Nancy or her union could be made to pay some or all of any compensation awarded.

I get the picture. if the employer hasn't held the secret ballot or achieved the required majority he's in financial trouble, so hell want to hold a ballot. If he doesn't, at $17,000 there'll be quite a few Bills, but Nancy may think twice if she knows she's going to have to pay out. Does the same apply to workers sacked for their trade union membership?

Yes. The Tories decided aluct.

to remove an obvious embarrassing inequality.

But what the tribunals consider dismissal for union membership or activities is extremely limited.

For example, it is only unfair to sack you for participation in union activities at an appropriate time.

And that .. means outside working hours or at a time when the employer agrees to you doing union jobs.

So the law does not help trade unionists sacked in non-union situations very much.

And remember, it is legally still ' OK for an employer to say "I'm not taking you on because of your union membership or activities."

What is the point I've heard people talking about to do with retrospective legislation?

Tebbit has set up a £2 million fund to reward those who stood up for anti-unionism in the past.

If you were sacked between 1974 and 1980 because you wouldn't join a union in a closed shop situation you had no legal redress under the Labour government's legislation. You can make up for it now by getting your share of the In what other ways. does Tebbit try to weaken trade union membership?

The new Act tries to stop unions using their power to extend membership. What worries Tebbit is that four million on the dole queues has not prompted an exodus from the unions by those who still have jobs as happened in the inter-war years. Indeed, unions like NUPE and NALGO are still growing.

So the law now bans:

*Clauses in contracts requiring the employment of union members by subcontractors.

*Discipline. *Trade union rights. *Machinery for consultation or negotiation.

*Rights under procedures.

Well, that just about covers every thing, doesn't it?

Not by a long chalk! When trade unionists refused to relay the 1977 Cup Final to South Africa, the Courts decided that they were not covered by this definition and were not protected.

Similarly, when the print unions instructed their members in Fleet Street not to work in support of the TUC's Day of Action in 1980, the Courts decided that the strike was political and not covered by the definition, so that the unions were not protected.

But these are exceptions, surely. Nearly all strikes will covered by your list, won't they?

Not really. The POEU strike against the Telecommunications Bill, the steelworkers' strike against redundancy, stoppages against privatisation in local authorities - all might be said to be not mainly about the issues listed and therefore open to legal action.

The point about this kind of formulation is that it gives the judges tremendous leeway to decide which strikes are and which are not unlawful.

And these unaccountable attorneys for the employers are hardly likely to do workers any favours.

What other sorts of industrial action are not protected by this formula?

The Act specifically lays down three situations where industrial action will not be protected.

Firstly, where your action is taken in connection with a dispute occurring outside the United Kingdom, unless your terms and conditions of employment are likely to be affected by the UNLAWFUL That's a bit of a mouthful. What does it mean in practice?

When nurses went to the pits and asked miners to strike to support them, they were inducing miners. to break their contracts of employment and by doing so break commercial contracts between for example the National Coal Board and the Central Electricity Generating Board.

Most lawyers said that the nurses were not protected as the NCB were not: direct suppliers oI customers of Regional Health Authorities, and they did not wish to disrupt supplies but to get a demonstration of solidarity:

Scan page 9

›ver the first urdle - ou ... Chich their work is admimIf you ask for blacking in r tr i strike from employees of P uppliers or customers of rour boss, you are over the ir irst hurdle. If you can't get t, and you go to employees If if that second' employer's W annliers vour action is nut- +1 awed.

However, even if you are ›ver the first hurdle - you ure asking for solidarity iction from workers of lirect suppliers or customers - you still have to show thạt rour purpose is to win your lispute and that your action s likely to achieve that purrose.

The problems can be seen Tom a case in 1979. The • picket your own worklace. The only exceptions re union officials (which ıcludes stewards) accomanying members they apresent, sacked workers ho are entitled to picket heir last worknlace. mobile LIMI vorkers such as drivers whe an picket the place from /hich their work is admin1S stered, and workers such as St eamen or oll rig operaives for whom picketing heir own workplace practicable.

When picketing your own orkplace, you have recious little rights. The louse of Lords has decided hat you have no right to icketing rights already face heavy attack from the law.

You have no rights at all unless you are picketing your own workplace. And even then the police have unlimited powers to cree numbers and conduct of pickets, and even to prevent them stopping people to put their case.

----- pull-quotes -----

SAVE FIGHT THE CUTS