The Individual vis a vis Trade Unions: The Union Membership Agreement

Abstract

There exists no direct legislation in Britain which relates to the closed shop per se or which makes the closed shop either lawful or unlawful. The legislation on pre‐entry and post‐entry closed shops which existed under the Trade Union and Labour Relations Acts 1974–76 was in connection with the law of dismissal. The fundamental changes made by the Employment Act 1980 are also concerned with dismissal. Indeed, the Thatcher Government went so far as to state that it remained opposed to the closed shop concept and that numerous employers and trade unionists themselves did not support it. The reason why indirect legislation and a Code of Practice (1a) exist on this matter is because “…closed shops are a fact of our industrial life…” and both sides of industry believe that they can help create stability in industrial relations. Furthermore, since some five million employees are covered by closed shop agreements or arrangements, legislation, albeit indirect, should exist for their orderly operation. Recent research shows that one in four of employees are covered by the closed shop. Whereas the 1974–76 legislation supposedly had the collective interest at heart, or more precisely the wishes of the trade unions deriving from the social contract, the 1980 legislation is concerned more with the individual interest by providing greater individual freedom. So as to achieve this freedom, the 1980 legislation creates openings, other than in respect to the religious objectors outlet which it repeals whereby it would be unfair to dismiss, or to take action short of dismissal in a closed shop situation. These openings in no way affect the legality of either the pre‐entry or post‐entry closed shop, they merely restore a balance by giving the individual a greater degree of freedom of choice and of personal liberty.

Citation

(1981), "The Individual vis a vis Trade Unions: The Union Membership Agreement", Managerial Law, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 7-14. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022389