dvbuk55 wrote:TrueBlueTerrier wrote:dvbuk55 wrote:Just wonder who holds the floor in an office where the majority is non members or even no members.
No members - the management by default.
Majority non members - in reality again the management will get what they want, but in law the collective agreement still holds.
By collective I assume you mean ALL employees and not just union members.
I wonder what the legality is also if a caucus of non union members felt their human rights had been infringed by not being included in a vote on working conditions and took legal advice.
No I don't mean anything - collective agreement has a legal definition
http://www.emplaw.co.uk/lawguide?startpage=026009.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
BASIC POSITION
A "collective agreement" is defined by TULRCA 1992 s.178(1)) as "any agreement or arrangement made by or on behalf of one or more trade unions and one or more employers or employers' associations and relating to one or more" of the seven matters specified in TULRCA 1992, s.178(2).
The Working Time Regulations 1998 SI 1998/1833 adopt the definition above of "collective agreement" (subject to the requirement that the union must be an independent trade union) for the purpose of validating collectively agreed variations to those regulations (see Working Time Regulations/exemptions and exclusions ) .
"Collective bargaining" means "negotiations relating to or connected with one or more of those matters" (TULRCA 1992 s.178(1)). A different definition is used for some of the purposes of the new rules introduced on 6th June 2000 by Employment Relations Act 1999 sched.1.1. As a general rule.for purposes of these new rules "collective bargaining" refers to negotiations relating to pay, hours and holidays only unless any other matters are voluntarily agreed.
The importance of all this is that the legal right to conduct collective bargaining is the essential basic feature of a recognised trade union.
In UK law, whether the terms of a collective agreement are binding as between a particular employer and a particular employee depends on the individual's contract of employment and on whether the term in question is "apt for incorporation" into individual contracts (see Anderson v Pringle of Scotland Ltd CS 1998 IRLR 64, Court of Session, South West Trains Ltd v Wightman & ors 1998 TLR 14th January 1998 for some examples of cases in which collective agreements between employers and trade unions were held to be binding on individual employees and Kaur v MG Rover Group Ltd CA 2004 reported at [2005] ICR 624 for a case in which they were not).
The European Court of Human Rights ruled in November 2008 that contrary to previous rulings on the effect of Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to form and to join a trade union), the right to bargain collectively should be regarded nowadays as one of the essential elements inherent in the right to form trade unions ( Demir & anor v Turkey ECHR 2009 IRLR 766).
I guess the law around collective agreements can be seen as biased towards Union membership, but then the Unions have lawyers on hand to check the legality of any agreement and thats part of what the dues are for.
There is also, I submit, and argument that can be made that by electing not to join the Union you have effectively decided by choice not to enter into any vote that is affected by Collective agreements.
aposter wrote:
Exactly, in an extreme example there could be one union member dictating the working conditions of the entire workforce but that is another argument, it just does not, to my mind, seem correct that one group of workers should be voting to the detriment of another, that to my mind is not collective bargaining.
They can't - any agreement is still subject to employment law. It cannot be unfair or discriminatory - therefore it cannot be so cut and dried as for one set of workers voting for an agreement that is detrimental to another set of workers just because they are non union members. Any agreement has to be fair to both sets.
aposter wrote:For example what would the consensus be if the collective decision between RM and the union was to offer the workforce (union members) the vote in the following scenario:
Vote if you want everyone with over 10 years service to receive an extra £1 p/h pay rise whilst everyone else loses 50p p/h
There is an argument that exactly that has happened already. Basic holidays start at just over 4 weeks - after so many years it ends up at 6 weeks. So long serving posties (union and non union) already get 2 weeks pay when on holiday whilst new starters have to work them, or take a 2- 3% pay deduction to get the 6 weeks.
I suppose the question boils down to whether collective agreements are fairer than the alternative. I would say that in general, and whilst acknowledging there are weaknesses and problems with the system and its application (many outlined above), it's usually fairer, and is certainly less messier than any other option.
At least if a collective agreement is broken by the company when the Union voted it in then they can oppose it you could get support from the Union on a national basis. A local collective agreement without any union involvement, or one voted in by a majority of non union members, would not get the same level of backing if the company decided to overturn it at short notice.
So yes collective agreements can be seen as unfair if you cannot vote in them, and they affect your working life I grant you that. But that is a direct consequence of deciding not to join the Union in a company which recognises collective bargaining. All choices have consequences, don't join the Union (or leave) and save £3 a week but have no voting rights in agreements. Or be able to have a say in agreements, pay rises etc at a cost of £3. The choice is that stark and is freely made by everyone.
(wether I will still be at the end of this debacle remains to be seen) Doesn't mean I have to agree with a majority rule when it effects colleagues livelihoods and certainly morally if not legally I don't think it is something that should be voted on if that is the case. 