The TUC has branded CBI calls to tighten up strike rules and cut the consultation period for redundancy as a “charter for exploitation” and in likely breach of the UK’s human rights obligations.

The employers’ lobbying group is appealing to the coalition government to change existing ballot rules to ensure that industrial action can only go ahead if 40% of the balloted workforce and a simple majority of those voting support it. At present, the law requires no minimum turnout, which means that strikes can take place “based on a relatively small turnout of particularly active members”, the organisation attested.
 
John Cridland, the CBI’s deputy director general, said: “We need to look at changing the rules around industrial action. Strikes cause misery. They prevent ordinary people going about their daily lives, whether it’s getting to work or getting the kids to school. Strikes also cost the economy dearly and undermine our efforts to help rebuild the economy.”
 
The CBI is also keen to see the consultation period for making collective redundancies of more than 100 staff shortened to 30 from 90 days in order to “reduce uncertainty for staff and allow employers to reshape their workforces swiftly to respond to significant falls in demand”. The consultation period for making less than 100 people redundant is currently one month so the move would bring the two into alignment, the organisation said.
 
But Brendan Barber, the general secretary of umbrella union organisation the TUC, denounced the proposals as “extremely unfair” to workers.
 
“The UK already has some of the toughest legal restrictions on the right to strike in the advanced world. The courts regularly strike down democratic ballots that clearly show majority support for action. The number of days lost to industrial action is historically low and less than in many other countries,” he said.
 
While the new government’s commitment to civil liberties was welcome, the CBI “seems to think that human rights stop at the workplace door”, he added.
 
A 30-day consultation period on redundancy amounted to “hypocrisy” in pretending to be for the benefit of workers as it would not provide unions, nor the staff not represented by unions, with enough time to develop alternatives or effectively negotiate changes.
 
“The CBI’s proposals add up to a demolition job on the rights at work of their members’ staff – and a charter for exploitation by unscrupulous employers,” Barber said.
 
In its latest report entitled ‘Making Britain the Place to Work’, the CBI also called for further action likely to antagonise the unions. It wants the Central Arbitration Committee, which today can automatically grant union recognition if it believes membership is more than 50%, to be replaced with a ballot. It is likewise keen to see the tribunal system strengthened to “make greater use of pre-hearing reviews to weed out weak claims”.
 
Moreover, the lobbying body is also demanding that the individual opt-out from the maximum 48-hour week under the new Working Time Directive be retained and the rules around employing agency staff be simplified. It is also proposing a review of how EU directives, including TUPE rules, are implemented to remove so-called gold-plating.
 
Next in line is the creation of what it described as a ‘sustainable employment test’ in the shape of a “rigorous audit” to ensure that any future employment legislation helped rather than hindered new job creation. The move would give business the chance to highlight where it believed regulation was poorly designed and provide suggestions for improvement, it said.
 
To boost participation rates and tackle under-representation as a means of stimulating economic growth, meanwhile, the CBI also wants to see the right to request flexible working extended to all personnel – as long as employers are given enough time to adapt and receive clear guidance on how to prioritise requests.
 
Finally, the sharing of caring responsibilities between parents should likewise be made more flexible while, rather than simply abolishing the default retirement age, a mechanism needed to be put in place to ensure that the right to request flexible retirement was more effective.