BA strike – An industrial dictatorship

The specific law that British Airways relied on is section 231 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 which states: “As soon as is reasonably practicable after the holding of the ballot, the trade union shall take such steps as are reasonably necessary to ensure that all persons entitled to vote are informed of the number of…” and then outlines the information they must provide, namely the number of votes cast as well as the votes for, against and spoiled ballots.

In case there is any doubt, the democracy of the cabin crew decision to take strike action is not in question here, simply the method UNITE used to inform cabin crew of the result. As Unite’s National Officer Steve Turner pointed out immediately after the injunction was granted; UNITE used all forms of modern communication to inform their members of the result. It took this writer an arduous 15 seconds to find the ballot result on Unite’s cabin crew website, which can be read here. The fact that a High Court judge could believe that UNITE did not take “such steps as are reasonably necessary” in informing the membership of the result beggars belief. It is difficult to imagine what would be ‘reasonable steps’. Perhaps the result should have been written on illuminated parchment and personally hand delivered on a white stallion to each and every one of Unite cabin crew’s 12,500 members?

This is not the first time legal technicalities have been used to overturn the democratic wishes of a striking workforce. As well as the previous cabin crew ballot in November similar injunctions also hit the recent RMT rail signaller’s action as well as strikes by London bus workers. The 1992 Act, introduced by the union busting Tory government and maintained and extended by New Labour, runs to 193 pages and is crammed full of similar technicalities. It acts to weigh the dice in favour of employers in any industrial dispute. Even where the union bends over backwards to comply with it they still face the prospect of being dragged through the courts where they will have to convince a High Court Judge they complied with the law. Given the blatantly pro-employer bias of the legal system this seems about as likely as Alan Sugar joining the Salvation Army.

The trade union movement now finds itself effectively hamstrung by the law while facing the worst economic crisis since the 1930’s. A Tory Chancellor is preparing an emergency budget next week that promises to slash public services while private sector employers are using the economic crisis, caused by the super wealthy, to rip up union agreements and drive down wages and conditions. This situation is intolerable!

It is high time that trade union leaders drew the conclusion that the law is guaranteed to always be on the bosses’ side. There is an urgent need to begin a discussion at all levels of the trade union movement on a fighting response to the bosses offensive against wages and conditions that includes defying the anti trade union laws where necessary. If the Tories threaten to sequester the funds of a particular union for breaking the law other unions must be prepared to come to their defence. At the very least the trade unions should immediately call for a mass demonstration outside Heathrow in support of cabin crew and in defence of the right to strike.

This judgement also brings into sharp focus the question of political representation for working people. 100 years ago the fore runners of the RMT, the NUR, faced a similar situation to cabin crew. They were liable to pay enormous sums to an employer they were in dispute with for taking industrial action, thanks to the invidious anti trade union laws at the time. The NUR could see that neither of the two big parties the Conservative and the Liberals (who at the time had the support of the trade unions) were going to repeal the law. Why would they? The Liberals and Conservatives were, and still are, big business parties and the anti-trade union laws were in the interests of big business. The NUR drew the conclusion that in order to continue to defend their members effectively against unjust anti union laws they needed to set up their own political party to represent them that would pass laws in the interests of working people. This was the beginnings of the Labour Party whose rise led to the end of the Victorian anti trade union laws.

Today the trade union movement faces a similar situation. All the three main political parties support the anti trade union laws, including New Labour, the recipients of millions of pounds from unions such as Unite. None of the front runners in the race to become Labour leader openly supports repealing the anti trade union laws. Unite, and the rest of the union movement must draw the conclusion that only a new party of working people backed by the trade unions can remove these laws and provide the kind of fighting program we need to resist the employers offensive.