The Government’s proposals on strike laws are an outdated response to industrial relations issues currently facing UK employers and could prove counter-productive, according to the CIPD, the professional body for HR and people development.

The Government’s proposed changes to existing laws on industrial action centre on:

  • raising the bar on thresholds for strike ballots, including a minimum turnout of 50% of union members entitled to vote and a further threshold for ‘important public services’ where 40% of those entitled to vote would need to vote in favour of industrial action. More info here 
  • tackling intimidation on the picket line and 'leverage’ tactics by trade unions. More info here
  • repealing the ban on using agency workers to cover for striking workers. More info here

In its submission to the Government consultation on the proposals, which closes today (September 9), the CIPD highlights that proposals are an outdated response to the challenges of the modern workplace. It says that the number of working days lost through industrial action today stands at less than a tenth of what it was in the 1980s, dropping from seven million days per year in the 1980s to an average of 670,000 per year between 1990 and 2014.CIPD surveys of employers and consultation with members indicate that relationships with their trade unions are generally good. Instead of focusing on ballot thresholds, the CIPD is urging the Government and organisations to build a better dialogue with their workforce, improve employee engagement and consider alternative methods of protecting the public from the impact of strike action, such as ‘no-strike agreements’.

Peter Cheese, chief executive of the CIPD, comments:

Government proposals seem to be targeting yesterday’s problem instead of addressing the reality of modern workplaces. The number of days lost to strike action has dropped by over 90% in the last twenty years and industrial action today increasingly takes the form of protest action rather than all-out strikes making the legislation even less warranted.“It’s time to start talking about prevention rather than cure when it comes to strike action and the public sector’s workforce challenges in particular. Taxpayers’ interests are best served by an efficient, engaged and productive public sector workforce. We need to see more consultation and ongoing dialogue, and engagement with, the workforce, rather than the introduction of mechanisms that reflect the industrial relations challenges of the 1980s. To jump straight to legislating strike activity without considering this seems to be a significant step back.“These proposals could also have unintended consequences, for example, by creating more division and encouraging trade unions to plan for more localised industrial action to maximise support and make it more likely that the proposed statutory threshold for membership turnout will be met. They may also lead to an increase in unofficial action, which can be hard for employers, trade unions or Acas to resolve.

On the threshold proposals, Mike Emmott, employee relations adviser at the CIPD, said:

The new proposals won’t make it impossible for trade unions to call lawful strikes. They will, however, harden attitudes and encourage trade unions to plan smaller, more localised protests to maximise support and make it more likely that the proposed statutory threshold for membership turnout will be met.

Commenting on the proposals to tackle intimidation of non-striking workers, Mike Emmott said: 

Intimidation in the course of industrial disputes, including on the picket lines or as part of a wider protest action, is completely unacceptable. Workers and their families should never be subjected to the kind of harassment that we saw at Grangemouth in 2013. However, we don’t believe that a new criminal offence needs to be created for this purpose. As the limits on lawful strike action become tighter, we can expect intimidation to become a more frequent occurrence in relation to industrial disputes. However, we believe that problems in relation to intimidation in the context of protest action should not, in general, be a matter for trade union law. The law on protest action should apply equally to trade unions and to other organisations undertaking protest action. “There are a number of existing public order offences, including assault, harassment and trespass, which may be relevant in these situations. The key issue is enforcement, and this is a matter for the police. The CIPD does, however, support the proposal to strengthen the Picketing Code so that a number of key aspects, including the appointment of a picketing supervisor, should be legally enforceable.

Commenting on the proposal to repeal the ban on using agency workers to cover for striking workers, Mike Emmott said:

There is nothing in existing legislation to stop employers from recruiting replacement staff, providing they hire them directly and not through an employment agency, but we have little evidence that employers take this option. Some employers might be interested in recruiting temporary agency workers to maintain operations during industrial action. However, in most cases they would find it difficult to recruit suitably qualified workers, and few employment agencies will want to get involved in industrial disputes.

If you wish to reproduce this press release in full on your website, please link back to the original source.

CIPD Media Centre

an interview

To get a fresh, evidence-based perspective from one of our expert commentators – on this or any other workplace issue – please contact our press team on +44(0)20 8612 6400 or

Callout Image

Championing better work and working lives

About the CIPD

At the CIPD, we champion better work and working lives. We help organisations to thrive by focusing on their people, supporting economies and society for the future. We lead debate as the voice for everyone wanting a better world of work.