AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Follow three-phase disputes plan: RHA

20th June 1981, Page 15
20th June 1981
Page 15
Page 15, 20th June 1981 — Follow three-phase disputes plan: RHA
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

LAWFUL industrial action should only take place once agreed procedures have been exhausted, says the Road Haulage Association; but it is against any legal enforcement of collective agreements.

In its submission to the Department of Employment on the trades union immunities Green Paper, the RHA says lawful industrial action should take place only where three clearly defined phases of preventive machinery have been exhausted.

Where there is a formal written disputes procedure — as is included in the new company agreements for North-east England — which defines the internal and external process for handling collective disputes, it should be exhausted before action is taken.

In cases where there is no written agreement, no action should be taken until the parties in dispute have met at a conciliation meeting with the Advisory, Conciliation, and Arbitration Service, and the conciliator has registered a failure to agree.

And no action should take place for another seven days. In all cases, each stage should be subject to a strict timetable.

While it may have been tempted by legal enforcement of collective agreements, the RHA says it feels this would be a retrograde step which could cause permanent damage to the concept of voluntary negotiations.

It says that most agreements in haulage have been honoured, and accepts as normal practice the fact that they are in jeopardy when they are being re-negotiated.

If collective agreements were made legally binding, there would either be a logjam in existing courts, once complaints of breaches flowed in, or new courts would have to be set up to deal with such matters. In either case, industrial relations would not be simplified.

In general, the RHA says that further legislation should only be introduced if it is certain that it will be accepted permanently by all parties, and it has told the Department that it hopes talks will be held between representatives of Government, trades unions, and employers.

The RHA suspects that it will be impossible to legislate to make trades unions accountable for the actions of their members, and adds that it might only create more difficulties.

It accepts that the law should protect the freedom to take part in industrial action, but it wants more protection for the "vic tims" of such action, as trades unions, in its view, gain too many advantages at present.

And the RHA has called for a trade dispute to be defined only as one between an employer and his employees on matters which affect them directly.

Inter-union disputes, disputes outside Great Britain, disputes between employees and another employer, and disputes intended to force another employer's employees to join a trades union should be excluded.

It has repeated its view that secondary action be outlawed, but is prepared to accept this where majority support has been received in a secret ballot.


comments powered by Disqus