UK Anti-Strike Law Fails to Meet Human Rights Obligations, Lawmakers Say

People stand on a picket line during a rail workers strike by members of the Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers Union (RMT), outside London Euston station in London on Jan. 6, 2023. Daniel Leal/AFP via Getty Images

The UK government’s plans to impose minimum service levels on public services during strike action need to be amended as they are likely to be incompatible with human rights law, a parliamentary committee has said.

The government announced the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill on Jan. 5, saying it will ensure “minimum safety levels” in the most crucial sectors when industrial action takes place.

Trade unions will be bound to follow this legislation and will risk the employer bringing an injunction to prevent the strike from taking place or seeking damages afterwards if they do not comply with their obligations.

The plans have been attacked by trade unions, while the main opposition Labour Party has promised to repeal the law if it wins power.

In its latest report published on March 6, the Joint Committee on Human Rights said that the proposed legislation does not appear to be in compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

ECHR Compliance

The report said: “While the European Convention on Human Rights does not include a ‘right to strike,’ Article 11 which guarantees freedom of association has been interpreted to cover the taking of strike action. This requires that any restrictions on strike action must be ‘in accordance with the law,’ which requires its consequences to be foreseeable to those affected.”

The committee warned that “without the government providing specific evidence establishing a pressing social need for minimum service requirements in respect of each of the very broad categories of service set out in the bill, compliance with the requirements of Article 11 ECHR remains unclear.”

The lawmakers said the penalties that would be imposed on trade unions for failing to comply with the bill would be “severe.”

They said in the report: “In our view, they may amount to a disproportionate interference with Article 11, particularly in circumstances where the strike does not involve essential services and risks to life and limb.

“The government should reconsider whether less severe measures, such as loss of pay or suspension from work for employees who fail to comply with work notices, could be effective.”

Strike Disruptions

The bill was announced in January amid waves of industrial actions launched by public sector unions, affecting multiple sectors including railways and the National Health Service (NHS).

Announcing the measures, the government said it will “always protect the ability to strike,” but it must be “balanced with the public’s right to life and livelihoods.”

The government has a duty to the public to “ensure their safety, protect their access to vital public services, and help them go about their daily lives,” it said.

Ministers said the proposed measures will see the UK align with many countries across the world such as France and Spain that already have minimum service agreements in place.

Grant Shapps, the then-business secretary, told MPs in January that the public “has had enough of the constant, most unwelcome, frankly dangerous, disruption to their lives.”

He said, “There comes a time when we can’t let this continue and that is why we need minimum safety and service levels—to keep livelihoods and lives safe, and it’s frankly irresponsible, even surprising, for the opposition opposite to suggest otherwise.”

‘Deep Flaws’

But Joanna Cherry, a Scottish National Party MP who chairs the Joint Committee on Human Rights, said the bill needs amending to address some of the “deep flaws.”

She said: “Heavy-handed sanctions are compounded by vague rules that would leave striking workers and unions in confusion as to whether they had been met or not.

“The sectors included in the bill are also ill-defined, risking over-reach into areas only tangentially linked to the maintenance of vital public services. This means the bill, in our view, is likely to be incompatible with human rights law which provides a right to association and with it, protection for strike action.”

She called on the government to “think again and come back with legislation that better respects the protections guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights.”

Angela Rayner, deputy leader of the Labour Party, said the committee is “just the latest expert body to conclude the government’s shoddy bill is not just unworkable but likely unlawful.”

She added, “It’s time for ministers to go back to the drawing board, not plough on with a dog’s dinner of a policy that will do nothing to resolve disputes and instead risks pouring petrol on the fire.”

A government spokesperson said: “The purpose of this legislation is to protect the lives and livelihoods of the public and ensure they can continue to access vital public services.

“We note this report and will consider it in full, but the government needs to maintain a reasonable balance between the ability of workers to strike and the rights of the public, who work hard and expect essential services to be there when they need them.”

PA Media contributed to this report.