By Jonathan Moreland, Managing Partner and Head of the Employment team at Swinburne Maddison LLP.
The new UK government has been busy in its first few weeks in office but what may have gone unnoticed is the repeal of a controversial law introduced by the previous regime.
The Minimum Service Levels (MSL) Act 2023 was brought in by the Conservative government to limit the impact of a strike by forcing public sector workers to maintain a minimum level of service.
Effectively, this meant that workers had to complete a minimum number of hours during periods of strike action – bringing the UK more in line with existing minimum service level regimes in countries such as France, Spain and Italy.
The main idea behind the law – also known as the Strikes Act 2023 – was to limit the impact of strikes on the lives and livelihoods of the public, and to find a balance between the ability of unions and their members to strike on the one hand and the need for the public to access key services during strikes. This isn’t an easy balance to find and the law drew criticism from some commentators who thought it weighed too heavily on workers’ rights. The Trades Union Congress even suggested it would use legal mechanisms to combat the new law, which applied to public sector workers operating in education, fire and rescue services, health and transport. And in January of this year, UNISON joined thousands of other trade union members in Cheltenham at a ‘protect the right to strike’ rally to protest against MSLs.
Now, though, the picture has changed. The current Labour government has decided to repeal the law through its new Employment Rights Bill on the basis that MSLs restrict the right to strike and undermine good industrial relations. Labour ministers believe that this will strengthen workers’ rights and in doing so, reduce the likelihood of strike action to resolve disputes.
Will this happen in practice? Will it reduce the likelihood of days of train strikes, walk-outs by teachers and doctors, and action at border security points? Hindsight and the fullness of time will tell us more but it’s hoped that Labour’s New Deal for Working People – which addresses key issues such as insecure work, low pay and exploitative employment contracts – can rebuild relationships between employers and trade unions, avert further strikes and ensure pay settlements are agreed more quickly. Some pay settlements have already been brokered.
There are risks, however. Some commentators say that returning more power to workers could give them more wriggle room to make unreasonable demands on their employer – and if they don’t get what they want, they may use industrial action as a bartering tool. Others say it will take more than the repeal of the MSL Act to get Britain’s essential public services moving again.
Another consideration is whether or not this will trigger calls to strengthen workers’ rights in the private sector. At the moment there’s no suggestion that this will happen but if it did, would it improve relations between employers and workers? Would it lead to higher wage demands and higher staff turnover, with workers potentially switching jobs more regularly in a bid to get a better deal? If so, this could lead to a brain-drain of industry talent and dent the profits of companies that feel obliged to bow to workers’ wage demands.
The repeal of the MSL Act will no doubt delight trade unions, provide comfort for workers and cause anxiety for some employers, but sensible negotiation and open dialogue should pave the way for decent relations between employers, employees and trade unions. This doesn’t always happen, of course, but mediation services and legal advice is readily available for those who need it.
www.swinburnemaddison.co.uk