Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Strike!

andysays said:
Just to expand on this last point, a check-off system (where union subs are deducted from pay by employer) tells employers who some of the members are, but not all, as there is also an option to pay direct, eg by direct debit.

So not paying by check-off doesn't prove someone isn't a union member.

For this and other reasons, I've always thought it's best to pay subs direct rather than using check-off.
Click to expand...

Yes. Plus employers a) can withdraw check off if they wish. There was a recent court case involving PCSU challenging (successfully) the decision by the government to do so and b) employers charge the union for collecting union subs.

www.pcs.org.uk

PCS wins check-off case against HMRC

PCS has won a fifth claim in the High Court over the removal of the check-off facility, through which our members paid their union subscriptions directly from their salaries before the government unilaterally withdrew it.
www.pcs.org.uk www.pcs.org.uk
 
Smokeandsteam said:
hitmouse Serge is correct (as is your Branch Secretary). The key issue is that the TULRCA regulations protects union members. Non member are unlikely to be covered by its provisions in the event of disciplinary action.

Also, the non-member was not balloted and therefore the union cannot formally induce him/her to strike.

Anyway, the solution is simple the non-member joins the union and is covered by the Act from the moment that they do.

ETA: on the latter point: is trade union membership covered by the equality act? the answer is: it depends. Philosophical belief is covered by the Act and so if someone was subjected to detriment because of engagement in a trade union or political activity due to a belief that they deeply held it would be possible to site the EqA, but TULRCA provides much more directive protection for tu activities
Click to expand...
Oh, see I'd thought that Serge's post meant I was in the right, legally speaking - I thought it was saying that TULRCA banned discrimination on the grounds of union membership, and so discriminating against non-members by taking disciplinary action against them that wouldn't be taken against a member would be a breach of it. But then I don't know how that fits with the "not part of the ballot" point.

On the equality act thing, I think I was just getting it mixed up with GDPR and trade union membership being counted as special category/sensitive personal data under that, going back to the whole "employers not having a right to know" thing.

Our branch does actually push check-off quite heavily, on the somewhat less than scrupulous grounds that, in hard economic times, people are more likely to look over their bank statements and cancel a payment that they can see coming out of their bank than they are to do so with a payment that's taken out by payroll before it gets to them, and I think also a strategic thing of wanting the employer to be able to see the membership as large and growing (obv, that one only works when it is actually large and growing). But I appreciate it has plenty of dangers, I've heard some horror stories about what happened in the care sector when you'd have places that were run by the council, with everyone paying their dues through the council payroll, and then the place got transferred over to a private employer that didn't have a dues check-off system and then the branch suddenly has no paid-up members and you need to run a full recruitment drive just to maintain the existing membership.
 
My (current) understanding is the same: legally the employer can't treat you any differently whether union member or not.

Ironically, on this occasion it's actually the union who will treat you differently, as you won't have access to strike pay, and you won't have access to support if your employer tries something.

Although there's also that 12-week thing, that UNISON recently emailed round about and put the fear up a load of members ( :facepalm: :D ), but pretty sure that's the same regardless of union membership too.
 
hitmouse said:
Oh, see I'd thought that Serge's post meant I was in the right, legally speaking - I thought it was saying that TULRCA banned discrimination on the grounds of union membership, and so discriminating against non-members by taking disciplinary action against them that wouldn't be taken against a member would be a breach of it. But then I don't know how that fits with the "not part of the ballot" point.

On the equality act thing, I think I was just getting it mixed up with GDPR and trade union membership being counted as special category/sensitive personal data under that, going back to the whole "employers not having a right to know" thing.

Our branch does actually push check-off quite heavily, on the somewhat less than scrupulous grounds that, in hard economic times, people are more likely to look over their bank statements and cancel a payment that they can see coming out of their bank than they are to do so with a payment that's taken out by payroll before it gets to them, and I think also a strategic thing of wanting the employer to be able to see the membership as large and growing (obv, that one only works when it is actually large and growing). But I appreciate it has plenty of dangers, I've heard some horror stories about what happened in the care sector when you'd have places that were run by the council, with everyone paying their dues through the council payroll, and then the place got transferred over to a private employer that didn't have a dues check-off system and then the branch suddenly has no paid-up members and you need to run a full recruitment drive just to maintain the existing membership.
Click to expand...

I do not see how a non member could bring a complaint under TULRCA because the legislation applies to trade unions and trade union members rights and responsibilities. In terms of strikes it provides legal protections for those lawfully induced by a union to withdraw their labour. I do not believe that a) non union members are induced to strike or that b) any disciplinary action against them for doing so could be prevented by the Act. No idea on GDPR and how that might apply but there was a case in Scotland recently where a Unison member won at EAT on philosophical belief grounds citing the Equality Act after her employer had threatened her for political campaigning. But, a non member would struggle to argue that they were striking because it was a deeply held philosophical belief but they hadn't joined the recognized union calling the strike.

We've has massive problems with check off for precisely the same reasons as you mention. Where work has been hived off to other firms the new company has refused to introduce check off. The advice we have had from the union is that we cannot challenge this legally as its not a contractual right to pay subs that way and we have had to re-sign our members using direct debit forms. The PCSU win on this is interesting as it does seem to suggest that there is a contractual right.
 
Lord Camomile said:
My (current) understanding is the same: legally the employer can't treat you any differently whether union member or not.

Ironically, on this occasion it's actually the union who will treat you differently, as you won't have access to strike pay, and you won't have access to support if your employer tries something.

Although there's also that 12-week thing, that UNISON recently emailed round about and put the fear up a load of members ( :facepalm: :D ), but pretty sure that's the same regardless of union membership too.
Click to expand...
this is the information sent out by one of my employers
1675418458896.png
 
Smokeandsteam said:
I do not see how a non member could bring a complaint under TULRCA because the legislation applies to trade unions and trade union members rights and responsibilities. In terms of strikes it provides legal protections for those lawfully induced by a union to withdraw their labour. I do not believe that a) non union members are induced to strike or that b) any disciplinary action against them for doing so could be prevented by the Act. No idea on GDPR and how that might apply but there was a case in Scotland recently where a Unison member won at EAT on philosophical belief grounds citing the Equality Act after her employer had threatened her for political campaigning. But, a non member would struggle to argue that they were striking because it was a deeply held philosophical belief but they hadn't joined the recognized union calling the strike.
Click to expand...
We'll have to wait for the first left communist to take a case to the employment tribunal in that case! Yeah, in terms of the practicialities I imagine that employers would probably just assume that anyone striking is a union member, unless for some strange and stupid reason they went around telling their manager "hello, I intend to go on strike tomorrow, and just so you know I'm definitely not joining the union". Although I suppose with the more sectional unions it gets more difficult, no way of knowing who might or might not be a member of Unite/GMB/Unison but I suppose employers are more likely to notice in the case of non-nurses refusing to cross an RCN picket, non-train drivers and ASLEF, and so on.

(Just got curious and checked the UCU rules for eligibility, looks like any office and library staff can potentially join but no mention of the cleaning/catering/security/maintenance type roles.)
 
CWU out on Feb 16th under our existing mandate; this is due to the CEO going back on a written assurance he had given regarding CWU involvement in workload/distribution revision exercises. It seems he just can't help himself.

I think the 16th is also the day we are due to announce the result of the ballot for another six months action.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice
 
Last edited:
Smokeandsteam said:
I do not see how a non member could bring a complaint under TULRCA because the legislation applies to trade unions and trade union members rights and responsibilities. In terms of strikes it provides legal protections for those lawfully induced by a union to withdraw their labour. I do not believe that a) non union members are induced to strike or that b) any disciplinary action against them for doing so could be prevented by the Act. No idea on GDPR and how that might apply but there was a case in Scotland recently where a Unison member won at EAT on philosophical belief grounds citing the Equality Act after her employer had threatened her for political campaigning. But, a non member would struggle to argue that they were striking because it was a deeply held philosophical belief but they hadn't joined the recognized union calling the strike.
Click to expand...
tbh in that position i'd say that a cogent argument had been put to me by a colleague on a picket line and because of that i felt i could not cross to enter work.
 
Pickman's model said:
tbh in that position i'd say that a cogent argument had been put to me by a colleague on a picket line and because of that i felt i could not cross to enter work.
Click to expand...
You can always claim that you didn't feel safe. I know someone who refused to cross a picket line on the grounds he didn't feel safe. The aforementioned person was a 6'2" weightlifter and the picket line was 4 women so his manager didn't believe him but no way he could prove otherwise.
 
Last edited:
hitmouse said:
We'll have to wait for the first left communist to take a case to the employment tribunal in that case! Yeah, in terms of the practicialities I imagine that employers would probably just assume that anyone striking is a union member, unless for some strange and stupid reason they went around telling their manager "hello, I intend to go on strike tomorrow, and just so you know I'm definitely not joining the union". Although I suppose with the more sectional unions it gets more difficult, no way of knowing who might or might not be a member of Unite/GMB/Unison but I suppose employers are more likely to notice in the case of non-nurses refusing to cross an RCN picket, non-train drivers and ASLEF, and so on.

(Just got curious and checked the UCU rules for eligibility, looks like any office and library staff can potentially join but no mention of the cleaning/catering/security/maintenance type roles.)
Click to expand...
Where I work, UCU has teaching staff members and members in Professional Services. But UCU does not bargain for those in PS, the employer's agreement for them is solely with Unison. I think PS staff who do join UCU do so because we're more active.
 
Serge Forward said:
Where I work, UCU has teaching staff members and members in Professional Services. But UCU does not bargain for those in PS, the employer's agreement for them is solely with Unison. I think PS staff who do join UCU do so because we're more active.
Click to expand...
Aye, same here. And recently learned the branch sec of another UNISON branch has also become a member of UCU! Think I've said before, but I've considered it previously (mostly because I feel like they are better at comms and providing useful info than UNISON), and thinking about it again.

Think it was also mentioned upthread, but aside from anything else, far as I'm aware our employer has no way of confirming whether we're a member of a particular union or not? At the very least, that certainly seems to be how my place is treating things, and it's simply "if you don't work, either by being on strike or refusing to cross, you just have to fill out the form so we can dock your pay". Have started to get the sense they're slightly more union/workers rights-friendly than other HE institutions, though, and certainly other employers in general!
 
hitmouse said:
Is Brexit level marginality when people keep insisting on mentioning Brexit on a thread despite its relevance to the topic at hand being marginal at best?

Anyway, have a question that I wondered if anyone could advise on: we had a member contacting us saying they'd been talking to a non-member who wanted to know if non-members taking part in action would be treated differently. I said I'd advise them to join cos they can't claim strike pay otherwise, but that non-members have the same legal rights and employers aren't allowed to treat people differently because of union membership. My branch secretary reckons I gave incorrect advice there, because non-members weren't included in/protected by the ballot and lawful dispute.
I still reckon I'm right, cos apart from anything else employers don't have a right to know who is and isn't a member, so that'd make treating non-members differently a non-starter, but I suppose I could be talking shit there, I was very close to saying that trade union membership is a protected characteristic under the Equalities Act until I googled it to check and realised it wasn't. Anyone know for sure?
Click to expand...
I think you are right but AFAIK legally it is a grey area.

As you probably know the legal position is that any 'affected workers' are legally entitled to take strike action, but the question is what is an affected worker. In my view it would include any worker that would be affected by the dispute - so on pay anyone who would be covered by the resultant pay increase, in the UCU USS pension dispute anyone who is a member of USS (but not workers that are a member of TPS).
But, unsurprisingly, my employer has a different view, their position is that 'affected worker' means those that were balloted. This is a very silly circular definition but then the law is an ass.

AFAIK the legal position has not been clarified yet so who knows who is right. I give the same info that you gave, that you can take strike action but that you are best off joining the union (for strike pay and protection), if they really want to they can also resign straight afterwards.
The other point is of course that in practice it is difficulty if not impossible for the employer to determine if a member is part of a union or not. Someone can join on the picket line and legally take action, and then resign the next week.
 
Serge Forward said:
Where I work, UCU has teaching staff members and members in Professional Services. But UCU does not bargain for those in PS, the employer's agreement for them is solely with Unison. I think PS staff who do join UCU do so because we're more active.
Click to expand...
Still trying to get my head around how this works - if UCU's effectively an unrecognised union for PS staff, then can they still include them in ballots? I suppose they must be able to do so, otherwise no-one would ever be able to strike for recognition. I know in some places UCU has a reasonable presence among IT and I think also some library staff, where I am it's pretty much just Unison in PS but then I think my branch might be a wee bit more active and visible than the average.
 
Really don't understand why Strike Map doesn't include a detailed calendar like that; you'd presume they have the data.

I know they create an image version, but it's not quite the same.
 
belboid said:
More targeted PCS action, as well as another 1 day all out on March 15

www.pcs.org.uk

Who is striking when

Strategic, targeted strikes were organised by PCS across the civil service in support of our campaign for a 10% pay rise, pensions justice, job security and no cuts to redundancy terms.
www.pcs.org.uk www.pcs.org.uk
Click to expand...
Yeah, hearing that March 15 is going to be the next big coordinated day - solid chance NEU will be out again as well then, from what I've heard, so RMT may well go for it as well?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

YouSir
Strike Funds
Replies
4
Views
495
hitmouse
hitmouse
PR1Berske
Strike breaking law
2 3 4
Replies
115
Views
6K
PR1Berske
PR1Berske
girasol
  • Poll
Should there be an energy/fuel payment strike in the UK?
2
Replies
45
Views
2K
8ball
8ball
cupid_stunt
Is the Adur & Worthing bin strike basically a dispute between UNISON and the GMB?
Replies
16
Views
793
cupid_stunt
cupid_stunt
Brixton Hatter
Climate Strike / School Strike for Climate
Replies
26
Views
2K
Brixton Hatter
Brixton Hatter
Back
Top Bottom