TRADE UNIONISTS in * Britain are faced with an increasingly sharp dilemma every time they contemplate industrial action to defend themselves: if they walk out they break the law, but if they don't, the employer can put the boot in.
The snares and pitfalls of the barrage of anti-union laws brought in during 15 years of Tory rule make it almost impossible for many sections of workers to take legal strike action.
This was starkly exposed when, at the end of February, a democratic ballot vote for strike action on March 1 by college lecturers' union NATFHE, which had registered 62% in favour of action, was overturned by Appeal Court judges.
They ruled that the 50,000strong union was obliged to have informed management in advance of the individual names of all those members who would be balloted - and that its records for this purpose must be accurate to "within the number of fingers of two hands".
If this restriction remains in force, almost every union would be potentially in breach of the law in conducting a ballot, since few have records anywhere near that accurate. The only workplaces where this would not be a problem would be the declining number in which all union members pay contributions through checkoff systems administered by the employer.
Attack on DOCAS One crucial aspect of the most recent (1993) anti-union laws was to mount a serious attack on union membership by undermining the direct deduction of contributions (the DO CAS system).
All unions are now obliged by this autumn to get each individual member to "sign up' a new authorisation for subs to be deducted from their wages, and to repeat the exercise every three years. To make matters worse, employers have been given the right to approach union members every year, or every time deductions are adjusted, to ask if they wish to pull out.
This attack is aimed at the soft underbelly of Britain's bureaucratised unions, the gap that has grown over the past decade between national leaders and the active members at branch level on the one hand, and the more passive layers of membership on the other, many of whom see little in the way of direction or leadership for their subscriptions.
Some unions are already predicting heavy losses of membership, although if properly organised, sign up campaigns conferences this summer for the right to strike, and for policies of defiance of Tory legislation designed to smash union strength" can strengthen branch organisation and revitalise a drooping rank and file.
Assuming unions retain the large majority of their members, they still face a succession of carefully-placed obstacles in mounting any fightback.
The rules on balloting are so rigorous it is now impossible to take legal action quickly. The time-honoured tradition of an instant walk-out after a show of hands at a mass meeting has been outlawed by the Tories -though it returned in a glorious moment of defiance on March 8 when 5,000 Sheffield council workers defied the legislation and stormed out on strike..
All legal immunities from civil liability for industrial action are withdrawn if a strike is not preceded by a majority vote in a secret ballot.
But to satisfy the law, even a majority yes vote must be followed by a week's notice to the employer, who must also be told whether the action is to be 'continuous' or 'discontinuous' — allowing strike-breaking measures to be put in place if deemed worthwhile.
To make matters worse, the union must also in giving notice of a strike 'describe' to employer the employees involved. According to the NATFHE judgement, this means listing the names of members to be balloted.
This would clearly enable hard-line employers to embark on systematic intimidation and victimisation of union members: it would certainly make legal strikes for union recognition almost impossible.
In addition, the ballot must be:
* HELD not more than four weeks before the action;
* HELD separately for each union participating;
* HELD separately on each location covered by the employer * ASK a question with a simple 'yes' or "no' answer;
* REFER specifically to a particular dispute;
* CONDUCTED BY POST if more than 50 employees are involved;
* NOTIFIED to the employer in advance.
Under 1990 legislation, unions are legally responsible and thus liable to civil claims for damages) for any industrial action that does not have official backing, unless it gives notice to each member involved that the union repudiates the action.
Employers have been given the right to sack workers who take unofficial action. Individual members of the public can seek court injunctions against those staging unlawful industrial action.
Breach of injunctions by unNew Tory Bill is a bitter blow to black communities, giving police even greater discretionary powers to stop and search as well as ban demonstrations and peaceful protests ions is contempt of court, and as such can — as with the NUM -lead to the sequestration of union assets.
Strike action is in any event given legal immunity only when it arises from narrowly defined disputes affecting the particular workplace and section involved.
Labour in 1974 removed any immunity for political strikes. The Tories in 1988 further restricted the right to take action on issues not directly involving workers and their own emYOU do not have to peaceful protesters. Many of the inite against the owner, and which may result