Observation (CEACR) - adoptée 2024, publiée 113ème session CIT (2025)

Convention (n° 87) sur la liberté syndicale et la protection du droit syndical, 1948 - Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne et d'Irlande du Nord (Ratification: 1949)

Results of the 2015 Undercover Policing Inquiry. Recalling the allegations relating to police surveillance of trade unions and trade unionists submitted by the Trades Union Congress (TUC) and the establishment of the Undercover Policing Inquiry (UCPI), which published an interim report in 2023, the Committee expected that a final report with recommendations will be issued in the very near future. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the UCPI’s investigations are still ongoing. The Committee observes from the information provided by the Government that the final report is expected to be published by the end of 2026, subject to receiving the necessary funding from its sponsor Department, the Home Office. The Committee expects the Government to ensure that necessary funds are available to the UCPI so that it can conclude its work on time and requests the Government to provide a copy of the report once adopted.

Article 3 of the Convention. Right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities and formulate their programmes. Electronic balloting. The Committee recalls that it has been requesting the Government to provide information on the measures taken to facilitate electronic balloting (e-balloting) for industrial action ballots for a number of years. The Committee notes that the Government recognizes that the domestic law governing trade union statutory ballots is antiquated and fails to recognize the huge steps trade unions have made to engage and communicate with members. The Committee welcomes the Government’s indication that as part of its plan to update trade union legislation, so that it is fit for a modern economy, it shall allow modern and secure electronic balloting and workplace ballots, as political parties and listed companies use, while ensuring high standards of engagement and participation. The Committee expects the Government to take all necessary measures to facilitate electronic balloting without further delay and to provide information on all progress made in this regard.

Minimum services legislation. In its previous comment, the Committee took note of the allegations raised by the TUC in 2023 concerning the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, (hereinafter the Strikes Act). The TUC alleged that the Strikes Act introduced unacceptable minimum service levels in addition to restrictive anti-strike laws already in place, granting wide power to the Secretary of State to determine the scope of these services without any guidance from Parliament, as well as the extensive list of sectors in which minimum service can be mandated, including education services and transport services. The TUC also criticized the lack of meaningful consultation with unions, the absence of mandatory agreements on minimum service levels, and provisions that impose undue obligations on unions, including enforcement of compliance by members, withdrawing the legal protection for unfair dismissal in case of non-compliance with the work order. The Committee therefore requested the Government to take the necessary measures, in preparing its regulations and other guidance, including codes of practice, to ensure that any minimum services imposed on industrial action in the transport and education sectors are indeed minimum, ensure the participation of the social partners in their determination, and where no agreement is reached, ensure that they are determined by an independent body which has the confidence of the parties. While welcoming the Government’s indication that it is committed to repealing the Strikes Act and related regulations, the Committee regrets that the Government provides no indications as to the intended timeline therefor. The Committee expects the Government’s next report to provide detailed information on all steps taken to that end and the results achieved.

Blacklisting. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the practice of notifying the police of the identity of activists; the details of any complaints regarding the handling of this information or its impact on lawful industrial action or lawful picketing, including any complaints made in this regard, as well as any plans for improving protection. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that blacklisting is completely unacceptable and has no place in modern employment relations. The Employment Relations Act, 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010 made it unlawful for an individual or organization to compile, sell or make use of a blacklist of trade union members or those who have taken part in trade union activities. Nevertheless, the Government recognizes that national legislation on blacklisting has not been updated for over a decade and needs to be modernized to account for new technologies and ways of storing data. As such, the Government is committed to updating regulations to outlaw the use of predictive technologies for blacklisting and to prevent workers from being mistreated or fired without evidence of human interaction. The Government also commits to end the loophole that allows employers to bypass laws through third party contractors. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on all steps taken and progress achieved in this regard. In the meantime, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide detailed information on any complaint regarding the handling of information received by the police on the identity of activists or its impact on lawful industrial action or lawful picketing.

The Committee recalls that for a number of years it has been commenting on the following matters regarding the Trade Union Act, 2016:

• Requirement for strike ballots. The Committee requested the Government to review section 3 of the Act with the social partners and to ensure that the requirement of support by 40 per cent of all workers for strike ballot did not apply to the education and transport sectors.
• The role of the Certification officer. The Committee requested the Government to review the impact of sections 16–20 of the Act to ensure that the expansion of the role of the Certification officer does not interfere with the rights of workers’ and employers’ organizations under Article 3 of the Convention and to provide information on any use by the Certification officer of its new investigatory powers and financial penalties imposed.
• Procedural requirements for industrial action.Return of workers to their posts following lawful industrial action. The Committee requested the Government to review sections 8 and 9 of the Act on timing and duration of industrial action, as well as to strengthen the protection available to workers undertaking official and lawful strike action.

The Committee welcomes the Government’s indication that it intends to repeal the Trade Union Act and to create a new era of partnership that sees employees, unions and Government work together in cooperation and through negotiation. The Committee regrets, however, that the Government provides no indications as to the intended timeline for this. The Committee expects the Government’s next report to provide detailed information on all steps taken to that end and the results achieved.

Sympathy strikes. The Committee recalls that the Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA) has referred to it the legislative aspects of Case No. 3432 (404th Report, October–November 2023, paragraphs 610–651). In particular, the CFA requested the Government to engage with the social partners to overcome challenges regarding the legislative prohibition on sympathy strikes. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the measures aimed at addressing the matters raised in that case and the outcome achieved. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the prohibition of secondary action protects the rights and freedoms of others and serves the public interest. The Government highlights that, under national law, lawful industrial action requires a trade dispute with the direct employer of the workers involved, as third-party employers cannot negotiate or resolve such dispute. Additionally, the Government indicates that this prohibition stems from the past experiences where such action has caused widespread disruption and economic harm. The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) upheld the UK’s prohibition of secondary action in the Rail Maritime and Transport Union (RMT) v. UK case. The Government points out that secondary picketing during lawful action is permitted and protected under trade union legislation. At the outset, the Committee wishes to make it clear that the ECtHR’s judgment, concerns the interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights: “The Grand Chamber’s statement reflects the distinct character of the Court’s review compared with that of the supervisory procedures of the ILO and the European Social Charter. The specialised international monitoring bodies operating under those procedures have a different standpoint, shown in the more general terms used to analyse the ban on secondary action … In contrast, it is not the Court’s task to review the relevant domestic law in the abstract, but to determine whether the manner in which it actually affected the applicant infringed the latter’s rights under Article 11 of the Convention...” (paragraph 98 of the judgment). The Committee recalls that its mandate consists in undertaking an impartial and technical analysis of how [ILO] Conventions are applied in law and practice by Member States; in doing so, it must determine the legal scope, content and meaning of the provisions of the Conventions (see the Report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, Report III (Part A), 112th Session, Geneva, 2024, General Report, paragraph 30), and, in the present case, of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87). In this respect, the Committee recalls that it has always considered that a general prohibition of sympathy strikes could lead to abuse, particularly in the context of globalization characterized by increasing interdependence and the internationalization of production, and that workers should be able to take such action, provided that the initial strike they are supporting is itself lawful (see the 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 125). The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to engage with the social partners to overcome challenges regarding the legislative prohibition on sympathy strikes, in conformity with freedom of association.