INDUSTRIAL ACTION BALLOTS AND NOTICE TO EMPLOYERS

 

---

 

July 2000

 

INTRODUCTION  

A consultation document (available in MS Word and PDF 80Kb), which requested comments on the draft revised Code of Practice, Industrial Action Ballots and Notice to Employers, was published in April 2000. The deadline for responses was 5 June.

The following summary of the responses received covers the main areas of the Code on which comments were made.

NB: It should be noted that not every consultee who replied to the consultation document made detailed comments on every section of the Code. The comments of consultees which are reported cannot therefore necessarily be taken as representative.

Thirty-four written responses were received and divided into the following categories:

 

Employers’ Organisations Employers Legal Profession

Trade Unions Other Organisations

  

 

            

The percentage of responses from each of these interest groups is illustrated above.

A list of respondents is given at Appendix 1. The responses are available to view by appointment at the DTI Information and Library Services, Tel: Ms Louisa Carney, 020 7215 6618 or Ms Kath Osborn, 020 7215 6484.
[note: two respondents wished their response to be treated as confidential and these are therefore not available to view].

 

Summary

Over half of those who responded expressly welcomed the goal of simplifying and clarifying the existing code and felt the 1999 Act changes and the revised code went some way towards this.

Several respondents – particularly employers – wanted the code to place additional obligations on unions organising ballots or industrial action, or at least to issue more strongly worded exhortations to them.

The TUC and several unions objected to some of the provisions of the draft code which carried over existing language exhorting unions, for example, not to ballot unless they were contemplating industrial action and had first exhausted all possible procedural means of resolving the dispute and to co-ordinate ballots where more than one union was involved.  The CBI, EEF and others on the employer side called for these provisions to be maintained, if not strengthened.

A number of respondents from both sides wanted more guidance to be provided on the information which needs to be given to employers in notices of ballots and industrial action and on the circumstances in which separate workplaces could be covered by a single ballot.

APPENDIX 1

LIST OF RESPONDENTS

ADVISORY,CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION SERVICE (ACAS)

AIKIN DRIVER PARTNERSHIP

ASDA

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY TEACHERS

BAKER & McKENZIE

BP AMOCO

BRITISH FURNITURE MANUFACTURERS

CONFEDERATION OF BRITISH INDUSTRY (CBI)

CHARTERED INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTANTS [CIMA] OO

CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION (CIA)

ELECTRICITY ASSOCIATION

EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS ASSOCIATION

ENGINEERING EMPLOYERS FEDERATION (EEF)

EVERSHEDS

FORUM OF PRIVATE BUSINESS

GMB

GPMU

INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY

INSTITUTE OF DIRECTORS

JEWSON LIMITED

LEONARD CHESHIRE

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION/EMPLOYERS ORGANISATION

LONDON UNDERGROUND

NFT DISTRIBUTION

ROYAL COLLEGE OF MIDWIVES

ROYAL COLLEGE OF NURSING

THE NATIONAL SAWMILLING ASSOCIATION

THEATRICAL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION

THOMPSONS

TRADES UNION CONGRESS (TUC)

UK OFFSHORE OPERATORS ASSOCIATION

UNISON