đŸ Archived View for library.inu.red âș file âș joe-king-break-this-law.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 11:22:38. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
âĄïž Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Break this Law Author: Joe King Date: 1991 Language: en Topics: strike, Ireland, trade unions, Workers Solidarity, workplace struggles Source: Retrieved on 9th October 2021 from http://struggle.ws/ws91/indust32.html Notes: Published in Workers Solidarity No. 32 â Autumn 1991.
A BAN on strikes in âessential servicesâ. That was the call from the
bosses and conservative politicians in the wake of the ESB workers
dispute. The PDs and the Greens made reference to treating the ESB
workers âlike the armyâ, TDs from the main parties talked of a ban on
strikes in âessential servicesâ, making them more difficult to have, or
compensating workers who lost their right to strike.
The union leaders, far from telling these characters where to get off,
offered to restrain their own members through a âvoluntaryâ code of
practice. Phil Flynn, joint General Secretary of the white collar union
IMPACT, told his conference that he welcomed the fact that codes were
being prepared by the Labour Relations Commission.
To back up this âvoluntaryâ code the Labour Relations Commission (LRC)
is considering removing the immunity from prosecution enjoyed under the
1906 Trades Disputes Act. This would allow bosses, or others, to sue
unions or individual strikers for loss of income or service caused by a
strike if the âcorrect proceduresâ had not been complied with.
These procedures are probably the extension of the âcooling-offâ period
to one month (i.e. plenty of time for management to arrange strike
breaking), compulsory arbitration before a strike can legally take place
and enforcement of a âminimum level of serviceâ â decided by the boss
and politically appointed agencies like the LRC â during a strike.
The essential services that are being talked about by the government and
the ICTU include the ESB, hospitals, buses, trains, fire brigade, water
pumping, sewage, refuse collection, An Post and Telecom. If they get
away with this attack on the hard fought for right to strike, the list
will grow.
Workers in every job, not just the essential services, do not strike for
the hell of it. They go without wages and often get into debt. It is
insulting to talk of âcooling-offâ. It would be a lot more honest to
admit this is a way for the boss to buy more time for plans to beat the
workers.
To talk of a statutory level of cover during a dispute is even worse. It
suggests that nurses would leave patients to die, ESB workers would cut
the power to hospitals or ambulance drivers refuse to attend an accident
scene. Trade unionists have a very noble record of providing a high
level of emergency cover during strikes in truly essential services.
They do it without being asked and they do it without pay.
These proposals to further muzzle workers are in addition to last yearâs
Industrial Relations Act. This was voted in by the DĂĄil without even a
whimper from the ICTU. They had given a commitment to new legislation in
the Programme for National Recovery.
The biggest changes are in respect of secret ballots, secondary
picketing and cases involving individual workers. The first is almost a
word for word copy of the anti-union laws passed in Britain when
Thatcher ruled the roost.
Section 14 forces a secret ballot to be held for all forms of industrial
action, including overtime bans and working to (the bossesâ) rule. Every
person who may be effected by the action has to be given an âequal
entitlementâ to vote. Seven days notice of any action has to be given to
the boss. If these rules are not followed the boss will be free to get
an injunction and the union could even have its negotiation licence
taken away.
The point is to delay action for as long as possible, widen the grounds
upon which an injunction can be obtained and discourage workers from
taking the most effective action. In most situations quick action brings
the best results. Now it is not legal to stage an immediate walk out
even in a unsafe work situation.
Not only must you give a weeks notice but the balloting regulations are
such that it is made harder to take a vote at a meeting. This is where
it is best done. Everyone can hear both sides of the case and ask
questions before voting whether to strike. Now an injunction could be
granted on the basis that anyone not present did not have an âequal
entitlementâ. Another step towards compulsory postal ballots.
If you decide to go out on strike, you will want the strike to be
effective. This means hitting the employer hard, making sure that all
business is halted. To do this it is necessary to stop your employer
moving production or distribution elsewhere.
There were always restrictions on secondary picketing, these have been
extended under the new law. Pickets will only be allowed at the âplace
where another employer who has directly assisted yours carries on his
businessâ.
It is not stated what âdirectly assistedâ means in law. Knowing the
record of Irish judges we can say with certainty that they will take a
very narrow view of this clause. Recently an injunction was granted in
the River Valley dispute to prevent the SIPTU strikers calling on other
workers to black the companyâs products because such a call interfered
with River Valleyâs commercial contracts. (Yet one more example of the
impartiality of the law!).
No industrial action involving one worker is permitted unless long drawn
out procedures have been complied with. Even in a case of unfair
dismissal workers still have to go though all the procedures before
taking action. This can take up to six months.
Speedy action is the way to get a fellow worker reinstated. Waiting half
a year is a great way to ensure that nothing happens.
No legal definition of an individual case is given in the Act, so once
again it will be up to judges to decide. However, as trade unionists we
should not be concerned with definitions. We have always held the âan
injury to one is the concern of allâ. So-called individual cases can be
used to change conditions, set precedents and victimise shop stewards.
The unions have been given two years to change their rule books to
comply with the new law. Failure to do so could result in the loss of
legal immunity. If the union membership decide they want to keep their
rules the way they are and reject the new ones, the union Executive is
given the power to change the rules anyway.
If they decide to respect the democratic wishes of their members and
keep the old rule book, the unionâs negotiation licence can be
withdrawn. This is blatant interference by the state in the internal
affairs of our unions.
The Industrial Relations Act is an anti-union law. If we donât put up a
fight against both it and the proposed âcodes of practiceâ the bosses
will walk all over us. The British trade union leaders did nothing to
stop the Thatcher laws. Now anti-union legislation is well established
there. We donât want that to happen here.
Speakers should be invited into section and branch meetings to put the
case against the Industrial Relations Act, motions against it should be
passed at all levels of the union movement. We should oppose the
attempts to change the rule books. When workers come into conflict with
the Act we must build real support for them. We should make the law
unworkable.