The eclipse of the rule of law: trade union rights and the EU
| Autor | Keith D. Ewing/John Hendy Qc |
| Cargo | Professor of Public Law King's College/Barrister |
| Páginas | 80-112 |
Revista Derecho Social y Empresa nº 4, Diciembre 2015
ISSN: 2341-135X págs.80-112
THE ECLIPSE OF THE RULE OF LAW: TRADE
UNION RIGHTS AND THE EU
KEITH D. EWING
Professor of Public Law King’s College
JOHN HENDY QC
Barrister
Fecha de recepción: 27-10-2015
Fecha de aceptación: 04-11-2015
RESUMEN: El presente artículo examina el principio de legalidad (TEU,
artículo 2) y su aplicación a los derechos sociales y económicos. El trabajo analiza qué
se entiende por el concepto de “principio de legalidad” y afirma que, como mínimo,
debe significar que las Instituciones de la UE y sus Estados Miembros tienen la
obligación de actuar de acuerdo a la ley, incluidas las obligaciones legales
internacionales. Asimismo, el artículo analiza la medida en la que los Estados
Miembros de la UE acatan el derecho de asociación sindical, el derecho a la
negociación colectiva y el derecho de huelga, conforme a los acuerdos 87 y 98 de la
OIT y los artículos 5 y 6 de la Carta Social Europea. Mediante el examen de los
informes de los órganos supervisores, se muestra que la gran mayoría de los Estados
Miembros incumplen una o más obligaciones de entre estas disposiciones, y que
muchos de ellos se ven obligados a vulnerar las mismas como resultado de las acciones
y exigencias de las instituciones de la UE. A pesar de los intentos de la Comisión
Europea de otorgar contenido al principio de legalidad, hemos alcanzado una posición
en el plano social en la que el estado de derecho ha quedado eclipsado, con las
profundas consecuencias que esta situación supone para la democracia y el futuro de la
Unión.
ABSTRACT: This article examines the principle of the rule of law (TEU, article
2) and its application to social and economic rights. The paper considers what is
meant by the rule of law, and contends that it as a minimum it must mean that EU
institutions and member states must act in accordance with the law, including
international legal obligations. The paper considers the extent to which EU member
states comply with the right to organize, the right to bargain collectively and the right
Keith D. Ewing – John Hendy QC
Revista Derecho Social y Empresa nº 4, Diciembre 2015
ISSN: 2341-135X pág. [81]
to strike in accordance with ILO Conventions 87 and 98 and the European Social
Charters Articles 5 and 6. It is shown from an examination of the reports of the
supervisory bodies that the overwhelming majority of Member States are in breach of
one or more of their obligations under these various provisions, and that many are
pushed into non-compliance by the actions and demands of the EU institutions.
Despite attempts by the Commission to give substance to the rule of law, we have
moved in the social sphere to a position in which the rules of law has been eclipsed,
with profound implications for democracy and the future of the Union.
PALABRAS CLAVE: Órganos Supervisores, Acuerdos de la OIT,
Incumplimiento de Obligaciones, Estados Miembro.
KEYWORDS: Supervissory bodies, ILO conventions, breach obligations,
Member States.
I
On 15 July 2015, the British government’s Trade Union Bill was introduced to
Parliament. The Bill contains a wide range of restrictions on trade union freedom,
which appear to contravene a number of ILO Conventions ratified by the United
Kingdom. The government’s proposals (which will be enacted before this paper is
published) will impose new restrictions on the right to organise, the right to workplace
representation, and the right to bargain collectively. They will also impose new
restrictions on both the right to strike, and trade union political activity, while
exposing trade union administration to new and unjustified levels of State
surveillance.1
The government’s attack on trade unions is to be seen in the context of a system
restrictions on trade union freedom introduced by the Conservative governments from
1979 to 1997. Although the Labour governments from 1997 to 2010 introduced a
1 For a critique, see K D Ewing and John Hendy QC, Protect the Right to Strike – Kill the
Bill (Institute of Employment Rights, 2015). For a more scholarly account, see M Ford and
T Novitz, ‘An Absence of Fairness … Restrictions on Industrial Action and Protest in the
Trade Union Bill 2015’ (2016) 45 ILJ (forthcoming).
The eclipse of the rule of law: trade Union Rights and the EU
Revista Derecho Social y Empresa nº 4, Diciembre 2015
ISSN: 2341-135X pág. [82]
number of reforming measures,2 these latter restrictions were largely unaffected, the
Blair-Brown governments apparently comfortable to live with Tony Blair’s promise on
the eve of his landslide election victory, to the effect that under a Labour government
British ‘even after the changes we do propose, Britain will still have the most restrictive
laws on trade unions in the Western world’.3
Yet it is not only the Trade Union Bill that contains proposals for change. On the
same day that the Bill was published, the government published draft regulations to
amend a law introduced in 2003 relating to the use of agency workers in a strike or
industrial action.4 It will now be possible for agency workers to be used as strike-
breakers.5 In addition, on 6 August 2015, it was announced that the Trade Union Bill
would be amended, it now being proposed to ‘abolish the check off across all public
sector organisations,’ as part of ‘curtailing the public cost of ‘facility time’ subsidies.
These latter proposals did not expressly appear in the government’s election manifesto
in 2015.6
It is as clear as night follows day that these various provisions will violate not only
a number of important ILO Conventions ratified by the United Kingdom, but a
number of other international treaty obligations as well. It is also true, however, that
although these are extreme measures, the United Kingdom is not an island of
deregulation. An article we posted on an ITUC website about the Bill attracted
commentary from Canada where we were told that:
In Canada we are in the middle of a federal election. Recently, we have
seen federal labour laws enacted that have contained some of the dampening
aspects of the British Trade Union Bill. If the far-Right Conservatives get re-
2 The ILO Committee of Experts has critically examined many of these restrictions, as has
the European Committee of Social Righ ts Committee. On the former see K D Ewing,
Britain and the ILO (Institute of Employment Rights, 2nd ed, 1994). On the Social Charter,
see most recently Council of Europe, European Committee of Social Rights, Conclusions
XX-3 (2014).
3 The Times, 31 March 1997. This claim was repeated in The Guardian, 27 April 1997, in
an extended interview with three prominent journalists.
4 The Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003
prohibit employment businesses ‘from providing agency workers to cover the duties
normally performed by an employee of an organisation who is taking part in a strike or
other industrial action, or to cover the work of an employee covering the duties of an
employee taking part in a strike or other industrial action (SI 2003, No 3319, reg 7).
5 Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, Hiring Agency Staff During Strike Action,
15 July 2015 (BIS/15/416).
6 The Conservative Party manifesto said only that a Conservative gov ernment w ould
‘legislate to ensure trade unions use a transparent opt-in process for union subscriptions’ (p
19).
Para continuar leyendo
Solicita tu prueba