Update: The Morning Star has a good comment on this
Update II: Building magazine reports that solicitors Guney Clark & Ryan is ready next month to begin formal legal proceedings against more than 40 companies in a class action suit that, in that favourite phrase of journalists, "could cost millions". They're using the Data Protection Act to bring the action. Amusing aside: the partner handling the case is Sean Curran who has also represented singer Pete Doherty.
Update III: Impassioned comment piece by Prof Keith Ewing in the Morning Star on the failures of the proposed legislation. Construction News on how MPs are being urged to amend the working when it comes before the house. (Having spoken to several and union officials one thing is clear - no-one has the foggiest what the process will be. How can the system be so opaque?)
*******
A little under a week ago the Government published its response to the consultation on outlawing blacklisting.
Its proposed regulations were cautiously welcomed - until people actually had a chance to read them.
Employment law expert Prof Keith Ewing reckons they're not worth the paper they are written on and several MPs who followed the issue closely are similarly disappointed.
Today UCATT, which last week broadly welcomed the publication, issues a stinging condemnation of its detail. In a statement it says:
Construction union UCATT fears that new regulations designed to outlaw blacklisting contain so many loopholes they will not deter the practice. In fact the Government’s consultation document appears to give the green light to employers to blacklist in certain circumstances.
In Ruined Lives UCATT’s submission to the blacklisting consultation, the union argued that the regulations should not just make it illegal to blacklist for “trade union activities” but should prevent blacklisting for “activities associated with trade unions”. The Government has totally ignored this key concern.
The difference is clearest in the event of workers stopping work due to serious safety concerns. This is considered to be unofficial industrial action. Such unofficial industrial action, which is legal, would not be covered by the proposed regulations and companies could continue to discriminate workers who took part in such a stoppage.
The Government’s response appears to encourage this. It says: “. The Government believes such [unofficial] industrial action is especially disruptive and injurious to orderly industrial relations because, by definition, the trade union has not endorsed and controlled it.”
Alan Ritchie, General Secretary of UCATT, said: “The Government has repeatedly promised to outlaw blacklisting. The proposed regulations fail to achieve this. Not only are these regulations entirely inadequate, the Government’s consultation response favours the continuation of blacklisting in certain circumstances.”
The Government also fails to address the routine blacklisting of safety representatives and campaigners, which was a notable feature of the Consulting Association’s blacklisting practices.
The Government gives credit to the Heating and Ventilating Contractors Association call that, “vetting of prospective employees was necessary to weed out trouble-makers, criminal elements or other undesirable people”. Its document says: “virtually all vetting activity which should normally have nothing to do with trade union matters, is left unaffected”. The Government’s response also clearly says it, “does not consider that a safety exemption should be created”.
UCATT are highly disturbed that the failure to specifically protect safety representatives and the allowance of “vetting” for activities other than trade union matters, will mean that these workers will continue to be considered by employers to be “trouble-makers” and “undesirable people” and as such will continue to be blacklisted.
As I write in an article for Tribune this week - the dilemma for campaigners is whether to try and amend the regulations as they pass though Parliament and face losing the proposal outright if they run out of time ahead of a general election, or accept what is being offered in the hope of amending it in the future.
A week ago they might have taken what is offered - now I'm not so sure.
Meanwhile I've had a couple more responses to my FOI requests to police forces for information held by them on The Consulting Association and its boss Ian Kerr.
As reported previously, both the Met and West Mercia could neither confirm nor deny holding information and denied my request on various exemptions including the security services and national security.
Greater Manchester Police have now given the same response citing the following exemptions:
Section 23(5) – Information relating to Security Bodies
Section 24(2) – National Security
Section 30(3) – Criminal Investigations
Section 31(3) – Law Enforcement
Section 38(2) – Health and Safety
Section 40(5) – Personal Information
However Merseyside Police have written to tell me:
In this case we have not yet reached a decision on where the balance of the public interest lies in respect of either of the above obligations. Therefore we plan to let you have a response by 18/12/09. If it appears that it will take longer than this to reach a conclusion, you will be kept informed.
The specific exemption(s) which apply in relation to your request is/are;
Section 24 National Security
Section 30 Criminal Investigations
Section 31 Law Enforcement
Section 38 Health & Safety
which require public interest tests. This is what is currently taking place.
I know they could ultimately refuse and neither confirm nor deny information is held. However, is it just me or could there only be a public interest test to be applied if there is information to consider? Or is that the act of releasing in theory needs to be tested? I feel like I'm getting into Rumsfeld's known unknowns so any FOI experts out there who can shine a light would be most welcome.
Comments