The government’s legal modification that permitted agency personnel to cover up for striking employees, has been ruled out by the high court, describing the Minister’s conduct to the policy as “irrational”
Following a hearing in May, Mr. Justice Linden issued a ruling, calling the ministers’ strategy to be “so unfair as to be unlawful and, in fact, irrational.”
As the government faced massive labor strikes in the rail industry and other sectors last summer, a number of labor groups, including Aslef, the RMT, and Unite, joined in a judicial battle of the government’s “strike-breaking” legislation.
The Former Business Secretary, Kwasi Kwarteng, was accused by unions of breaking the law, when he proposed revisions to laws that they claimed undercut their ability to strike.
In order to provide “businesses freedom to access fully skilled staff at speed,” Kwarteng committed to swiftly push through revisions in June 2022 by “repealing the 1970s-era restrictions.”
To minimize strike disruption, it was a “vital” reform, according to Grant Shapps, the then-transportation secretary.
The court ruling revealed that, the Former Business Secretary showed no desire in collating data or consulting with others, and that “his approach was so unfair as to be unlawful, and indeed irrational.”
The ruling further showed that, Mr. Kwasi Kwarteng consented to amend the legislations despite “advice that it would be of negligible short-term benefit, and would probably be counterproductive.”
National Unit Secretary, Sharon Graham said “this is a total vindication for unions and workers.”
“The government’s decision to allow employers to recruit agency workers to undermine legal strike action was a cynical move to back their friends in business and weaken workers’ legal rights to withdraw their labour.”
Sharon Graham, Nation Unit Secretary.
Moreover, variety of amendments were proposed by the administration to reduce the impact of the strike. One of the recommendation, was to see to it that, unions and workers were legally required to undertake certain service during deliberate strike actions.
Aslef General Secretary, Mick Whelan declared that, the train drivers union, was “proud to have stood with other unions to challenge these changes legally, and we will continue to do so in all those other areas, including minimum service levels, to ensure a level playing field for workers here in the UK.”
The verdict, according to the Trades Union Congress, was a “badge of shame” for the administration and devastating in its evaluation of Kwarteng’s conduct.
“The government railroaded through this law change despite widespread opposition from agency employers and unions. The courts even found ministers ignored evidence that the measure would be counterproductive. This is the same reckless approach behind the anti-strike bill, which has faced a barrage of criticism from employers, rights groups and international bodies. Ministers should spare themselves further embarrassment. These cynical strike-breaking agency worker laws must be scrapped once and for all and the draconian anti-strike bill must be junked for good too.”
General Secretary of Trade Union Congress, Paul Nowak.
According to Richard Arthur, head of trade union law at Thompsons solicitors, the ruling was “a significant victory” for unions, and it determined that the then-minister “had a staggering disregard for his legal obligations.”
“This is bad law-making made on the hoof and the court has rightly held the government to account.”
Richard Arthur, Head of Trade Union Law.
The Department of Business also expressed their dissatisfaction on the ruling of the court.
“We are disappointed with the high court’s decision as we believed the decision to repeal the ban on agency workers covering strikes complied with our legal obligations. The ability to strike is important, but we maintain there needs to be a reasonable balance between this and the rights of businesses and the public. We will consider the judgment and next steps carefully.”
Representative for the Department of Business and Trade.
