UK government faces calls to drop attempt to revive anti-strike law

Ministers faced calls from unions and recruiters on Wednesday to scrap a fresh attempt to bring in legislation that would allow UK employers to break strikes by hiring agency workers to fill in for employees taking industrial action.

The measure, introduced last year during a wave of industrial action by public sector workers, made it easier for employment agencies to supply staff to cover for strikers on a temporary basis. For decades the practice had been a criminal offence.

The law was quashed in July by the High Court in a ruling that described ministers’ approach as being “so unfair as to be unlawful, and, indeed, irrational”. The court found that the government had failed to comply with a statutory duty to consult before introducing the legislation, instead relying on a previous consultation from 2015.

The government wants to revive the measures, as part of a broader legislative push to curb unions’ power, and began a consultation in November which closed last week.

But in a joint statement, the Trades Union Congress, the umbrella body for organised labour, and the Recruitment & Employment Confederation urged a rethink.

They described the measures as “impractical” and “ill-judged” when the focus should be on negotiation and resolution. “We both believe that using agency staff to cover strikes only prolongs and inflames the conflict between employers and their permanent staff,” they added.

Paul Nowak, general secretary of the TUC, said the move to try to reverse the ban was “spiteful, cynical . . . and won’t work”. The TUC noted that the government’s impact assessment of the measure — published alongside the consultation in November — calculated that the net benefit to employers was a mere £38,000, although this figure was not intended to include the wider benefits to the economy of avoiding disruption.

Neil Carberry, chief executive of REC, said: “Agencies across the country have been clear that they do not want the law changed again.” The ban on replacing striking workers was good practice globally and protected agency staff from “being drawn into disputes”, he added.

The public rebuke by a leading business group comes after train operators ignored pressure from ministers to use separate anti-strike laws also brought in last year. The so-called minimum service level measures could have been invoked to keep services running during industrial action planned by train drivers next week.

Under the legislation, employers have the right to identify staff members who need to keep working during walkouts to ensure a minimum level of service in critical sectors — with regulations already in place covering rail, border officials and ambulance crews.

But in the first test of those new powers, the state-run train operator LNER backed down on plans to use the legislation after the drivers’ union Aslef threatened to respond by calling extra days of strike action.

The government said it wanted to ensure “an appropriate balance between the right to strike and the rights of the general public to go about their daily lives and access vital public services” and added that there was “a strong case for this change” to help employers to manage disruption.

Bonus season — are you headed for a payout or a doughnut?

For the third year in a row, the Financial Times is asking readers to confidentially share their 2024 bonus expectations, and whether you intend to invest, save or spend the cash. Tell us via a short survey