Shopped over Closed Shop?
Page 28
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
JOANNA HARRIS' dispute with the Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council highlights the limitations of the 1980 Employment Actrs provisions on the Closed Shop.
The facts are well known. Miss Harris has the "choice" of joining a trade union (NALGO) because her employers have negotiated a Closed Shop agreement, or of being Jismissed from her £70 per ;week job as a poultry inspector. Moreover the 1980 Act cannot arevent her dismissal — why?
The 1980 Act merely enlarges he circumstances where such lismissals will be found to be Jnfair. The new protection given s against unfair dismissal, not against actual dismissal.
This limited protection to nonJnionists covers situations where employees show (1) lenuine objection on grounds of :onscience or other deeply held aersonal conviction to union nembership or (2) That they have not )elonged to the relevant union ;ince the Closed Shop igreement came into force or (3) As regards new Closed ihop agreements, that it has not aeen approved by an 80 per cent najority in a secret ballot or if it as been so approved, that they lave not, since the date of the ■ allot, been union members. These employees, if lismissed, can only take their ase to a tribunal and seek ompensation for unfair lismissa I — Mr Prior's advice to Aiss Harris.
Clearly this is not enough. mployees with family or iortgage responsibilities can't fford to lose their jobs, specially now when new jobs imply don't exist.
Moreover, employees who do old out against union lembership and are dismissed lay, particularly if their length f service is relatively short, expect to receive low compensation awards.
Not surprisingly, pressure on the Government to abandon the kid-glove approach to Closed Shops is mounting. DOUGLAS AINLEY Ranelagh Avenue London SW6