Industrial disputes and dispute resolution machinery of France and U.K

France

In France, the right to strike is recognized and guaranteed by the Constitution.

A "minimum service" during strikes in public transport was a promise of Nicolas Sarkozy during his campaign for the French presidential election. A law "on social dialogue and continuity of public service in regular terrestrial transports of passengers" was adopted on August 12, 2007, and it took effect on 1 January 2008.

This law, amongst other measures, forces certain categories of public transport workers (such as train and bus drivers) to declare to their employer 48 hours in advance if they intend to go on strike. Should they go on strike without having declared their intention to do so beforehand, they leave themselves open to sanctions.

The unions did and still do oppose this law and argue these 48 hours are used not only to pressure the workers but also to keep files on the more militant workers, who will more easily be undermined in their careers by the employers. Most importantly, they argue this law prevents the more hesitant workers from making the decision to join the strike the day before, once they've been convinced to do so by their colleagues and more particularly the union militants, who maximise their efforts in building the strike (by handing out leaflets, organising meetings, discussing the demands with their colleagues) in the last few days preceding the strike. This law makes it also more difficult for the strike to spread rapidly to other workers, as they are required to wait at least 48 hours before joining the strike.

This law also makes it easier for the employers to organise the production as it may use its human resources more effectively, knowing beforehand who is going to be at work and not, thus undermining, albeit not that much, the effects of the strike.

However, this law has not had much effect as strikes in public transports still occur in France and at times, the workers refuse to comply by the rules of this law. The public transport industry - public or privately owned - remains very militant in France and keen on taking strike action when their interests are threatened by the employers or the government.

The public transport workers in France, in particular the "Cheminots" (employees of the national French railway company) are often seen as the most radical "vanguard" of the French working class. This law has not, in the eyes of many, changed this fact.

In the United Kingdom

The Industrial Relations Act 1971 was repealed through the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974, sections of which were repealed by the Employment Act 1982.

The Code of Practice on Industrial Action Ballots and Notices, and sections 22 and 25 of the Employment Relations Act 2004, which concern industrial action notices, commenced on 1 October 2005.

Legislation was enacted in the aftermath of the 1919 police strikes, forbidding British police from both taking industrial action, and discussing the possibility with colleagues. The Police Federation which was created at the time to deal with employment grievances, and provide representation to police officers, has increasingly put pressure on the government, and repeatedly threatened strike action.

Examples/ cases

France

With or without the detention of management or other threats, several disputes highlighted the poor state of industrial relations in many French companies. For example, this was the case in the lingerie manufacturer Aubade and the tyre manufacturer Michelin, as well as other car industry suppliers; moreover, the electricity and gas supplier EDF-GDF experienced a long dispute in April 2009, accompanied by illegal power cuts and reconnections of defaulting consumers. Many subsidiaries of foreign groups were also affected – such as the car parts manufacturer Continental Autoradios, the tyres and rubber producer Goodyear, the electronic components manufacturer Molex and Faurecia – reflecting the harshness of restructuring and the reduced room to manoeuvre in bargaining allowed by parent companies.

Various demands have been made during these disputes. In many cases, it was a matter of negotiating the best possible redundancy payments, as workers did not believe that it would be possible to have the decision cancelled; for example, in Continental they won €50,000 per worker. In other cases, it was a matter of compelling the contractor to take on board redundancies or even to negotiate the subcontracting enterprise being reincorporated into the contracting company. These disputes continued in the autumn of 2009, and often – especially in the most radical cases – achieved results such as the payment of better severance benefits than those provided in the collective agreement or the creation of teams responsible for placing redundant employees.

U.K

The 2002-2003 UK firefighter dispute began when the UK firefighters union, the Fire

Brigades Union (FBU), voted to take strike action in an attempt to secure a better salary. The

FBU demanded a 39 percent increase in pay, which would have brought the average

firefighter's wage (at the time) to around £30,000, it balloted its members for a strike in late

2002, the industrial action began in November. It was the first nationwide firefighters' strike

in the UK since the 1970s.

The strike came as part of a wave of industrial action in Britain, which began with the council

workers' strike in July of the same year, and continued with other events. For example, 95%

of the UK's postal workers voted for industrial action.

The first few weeks of the planned action were postponed while negotiation took place. The first period, a two day strike, began at 18:00 hrs GMT, on Wednesday 13 November and ended at 18:00 on Friday 15 November. In the event that reconciliation could not be brokered, further industrial action was planned.

The armed forces provided emergency cover during the strike, using vintage Green Goddess engines, and modern red fire appliances as part of Operation Fresco. The armed forces also fielded small breathing apparatus rescue teams (BART) and rescue equipment support teams (REST) headed by professional firefighters of the RAF and staffed by specially trained members of all three services.

Each side placed the responsibility entirely with the other; the FBU said that their employers' failure to meet their demands was the cause of the strike. Many feared that lives would be lost in fires because of a lack of a prompt response by emergency services. There were numerous examples of striking firefighters responding to emergency calls from the picket line and several rescues were made in this way, however there were also many instances where the armed forces were refused help or equipment by the FBU despite the possible risk to life.

Negotiations

The first few weeks of the planned action were postponed while negotiation took place. The FBU rejected an offer that would amount to 11 percent over two years from a review body headed by Sir George Bain, and were unwilling to accept reforms to their working conditions. The FBU was widely criticised for its initial demand for a 40 percent pay-rise for both firefighters and support workers; indeed, it refused to abandon this demand despite mounting public disquiet concerning the FBU's stance.

On March 19, 2003, leaders of the FBU and negotiators for the local authority employers reached a provisional agreement based on a three year pay settlement and an understanding that modernisation measures would be subject to some measure of local negotiation. To the surprise of many observers, this was voted down by local area FBU representatives the following day.

On June 12, 2003, the dispute ended with the firefighters accepting a pay deal worth 16 percent over three years linked to changes to working conditions.

Tensions were raised again in 2004, when the FBU and local authority employers clashed over whether the deal brokered in 2003 was being honoured. However, this round of negotiations was settled without recourse to industrial action in August of that year.