Well, we avoided May bank holiday standstill on our railways. However, Network Rail have announced that they will strike in June 2015 on two days as the RMT workers are left with no option, following the latest pay offer from Network Rail. The rail workers have been offered very small pay rises and no compulsory redundancies. This was enough to sway TSSA members but not RMT members. Perhaps they pondered the 6 figure bonuses of Network Rail bosses, which they appear to receive even when passengers are left stranded over holidays (for example last Christmas).
Here is a timely reminder of the decision in the case of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers v United Kingdom  IRLR 467.
The case was unwelcome news for employees but welcome news for employers. The European Court of Human Rights held that two of the central parts of the UK’s legislation on industrial action were not in breach of the right to freedom of association of the European Convention of Human Rights, as contended by the RMT. In particular it held that:
This decision has provided employers with confirmation that they remain free to continue to point to legal shortcomings in the conduct of ballots brought by Unions, in the hope of negotiating a climb-down or seeking an injunction. It is evident that employees have not been put-off by this decision and that employers have felt encouraged to continue to use their powers to object to ballots. If the June strike goes ahead, it will be the first national train strike in two decades
Although the first part of the decision in the case above appeared to support the rules and favour employers, the court indicated that in relation to the second part it felt that the UK’s law relating to secondary industrial action is on the stricter end of the scale compared to other nations regulatory approaches. Additionally, it stated that the UK’s position is “out of line with a discernible international trend towards a more liberal position”. Despite the Court’s views, this was not sufficient to persuade the Court that the breach was unlawful (as the UK’s legislative authorities had relied on relevant, sufficient and proportional reasons for its decision), but it does demonstrate that there is some thought that the UK may need to relax its rules relating to strike action.
Despite this body of thought and seemingly clear criticism of the UK’s prohibition on secondary industrial action (which harks back to Thatcherism and a dismantling of Trade Union powers in the late 1980s and 1990s) the new Government has felt empowered by the case above: in its first Queen’s Speech it outlined plans to amend the laws relating to strikes. In particular, the Conservative party has said that it plans to ban strikes unless 40 percent of people vote in favour of industrial action and there needs to be at least 50 percent turnout: i.e. 50% of those entitled to vote for a strike must vote one way or the other. Interestingly, the RMT’s figures in current industrial action ballot mentioned above would have passed the proposed new stricter rules, whereas but the TSSA’s numbers would not.
The Government also plans to prioritise proposals which would allow employers to hire agency staff to cover for those who are on strike. These proposed plans, if implemented, will ensure that the public and employers are less adversely affected by the strikes and they will ensure that the same situations that arose during the Coalition Government (two thirds of strike ballots failed to attract the support of even half of the workforce. In some cases, strikes have gone ahead with the support of as few as one in 10 workers) do not arise. These proposals will therefore be welcome news for employers, but they appear to be contrary to the body of thinking mentioned above and appear to be a clear indication of the Government’s approach to undermining of employment law rights more generally.
It is clear that the law regarding industrial action continues to have significant implications for both sides of the Transport Industry, as well as for the public.