Minimum Service Levels Bill receives Royal Assent

[Watershed]

On Thursday, the Minimum Service Levels Bill received Royal Assent:

• Minimum Service Levels balance the ability of workers to strike with the rights of the public, who expect essential services they pay for to be there when they need them.
• Government will now launch a public consultation on the reasonable steps unions should take to ensure their members comply with a work notice given by an employer.

The Strikes (Minimum Service Level) Act has today [Thursday 20 July] received Royal Assent in Parliament, ensuring workers maintain the ability to strike whilst giving the public access to the essential services they need.

Government will now proceed with plans to implement minimum service levels for passenger rail services, ambulance services and fire and rescue services.

Minimum service levels will ensure a minimum service operates in specified services during periods of strike action.

This will help protect the safety of the general public and ensure essential services are there when they need them – whether getting the train to work or being able to call an ambulance in times of emergency.

This will follow public consultations on the most appropriate approach for delivering Minimum Service Levels in passenger rail and blue light services. The Government is currently analysing responses and will respond in due course.

A public consultation will also be launched this Summer on the reasonable steps unions must take to comply with a work notice issued by employers under minimum service levels legislation.

This Government firmly believes that the ability to strike is an important part of industrial relations in the UK, rightly protected by law, and understands that an element of disruption is inherent to any strike. But the public expects government to act when their essential services are put at risk.

It won't have an immediate impact, as a public consultation will be launched before minimum service levels are agreed with - or, in some cases, imposed by - the relevant employers.

ASLEF has sent out a press release stating that the Act is "doomed":

Mick Whelan, general secretary of ASLEF, the train drivers’ union, has spoken out after the Minimum Service Levels Bill received Royal Assent and became law yesterday [Thursday 20 July].

‘We are disappointed, naturally, that the Tories, with their large majority in the House of Commons, have forced this Bill through despite the concerns of MPs and peers and in the face of reason. But this Act poses more questions than answers. As Lord John Hendy QC said in the House of Lords, “How is it actually going to work? What will they do about unusual levels of sickness? It’s impractical. And probably unworkable”.’

The success of ASLEF’s strikes over the last twelve months – bringing services to a standstill – led the Tory government to bring in this law requiring a minimum service level in some sectors – including the railways – in an effort to neutralise trade unions and the bargaining power of workers in our fight for fair pay. But Mick says the idea is ‘pie in the sky’:

‘A minimum service level on Britain’s railways will result in a dangerous level of overcrowding because, when passengers know trains are running, they will try to get on them. Many commuter services run, during peak times, with 1,300 passengers on a 12 car train. If all, or most, of those passengers try to get on MSL services then the overcrowding will put lives at risk. Not just on the train, but on platforms, because there will be fewer services to clear the stations. That’s why the rail industry doesn’t want MSLs and why the Railway Safety & Standards Board has warned against their implementation.

‘The government has not thought through the practicalities. To run, say, 20% of trains will require 40% of the drivers. You can’t just reduce the number of drivers to 20%. There are issues around route and traction knowledge. And having 40% of drivers being paid while delivering only 20% of the services will mean we can extend the disruption caused by industrial action over a much longer period at less cost, in lost pay, to our members. So we will be able to have a week’s worth of action for the cost to members of one or two days’ pay.

‘And unless the government bans picketing – and even this government has not, yet, suggested this – then many drivers will simply not cross an ASLEF picket line.’

The government has claimed that an MSL on the railway could be ‘managed by agreement between the employer and the trade union’.

‘But, if we are in dispute, the relationship is hardly likely to be cordial and collegiate and such an agreement is highly unlikely! MSLs will not make a resolution to any dispute any easier – it will merely prolong an industrial dispute.’

The RMT and other unions have not have responded yet.

 

[Hardcastle]

Hopefully before it goes through the Tories will be out of power it's just a attack on the working class.

 

[Watershed]

Hopefully before it goes through the Tories will be out of power it's just a attack on the working class.

Err, it's already received Royal Assent!

 

[Hardcastle]

So surely it's got to be acctioned that's another thing.

 

[Thirteen]

We won't see this in effect until later this year or early 2024. I assume if Labour gets into power then they'll scrap it.

 

[yorkie]

Hopefully before it goes through the Tories will be out of power it's just a attack on the working class.

Countries like Italy have a similar law, and I was grateful for it on a trip there once.

 

[74A]

What are the penalties for a union if it fails to comply. Is it likely the current strike laws that they can be sued and have their assets seized ?

 

[rmt4ever]

If this gets in then would the workers forced to run these minimum services still be described as “scabs” ?

 

[dk1]

We won't see this in effect until later this year or early 2024. I assume if Labour gets into power then they'll scrap it.

Fingers crossed. I won’t be making any effort.

 

[Snow1964]

it's just a attack on the working class.

What century are you in using that terminology?

I have never met anyone in Ambulance service, fire and rescue, nuclear industry, Education, or border force etc that would describe themselves as working class.

 

[Sly Old Fox]

If you get up at ridiculous hours of the day to go to work you’re working class.

 

[Robertj21a]

Hopefully before it goes through the Tories will be out of power it's just a attack on the working class.

I'm pretty sure it's designed to help the travelling public - all too often ignored by just about everybody else!

 

[dk1]

If this gets in then would the workers forced to run these minimum services still be described as “scabs” ?

No.

 

[newtownmgr]

As far as I’m aware this cannot be applied retrospectively, so as long as the unions keep re balloting on the original mandate which they can do indefinitely it won’t apply to this dispute.

It’s in place across Europe but is extremely difficult to operate & is rarely used with the exception of certain main lines.

 

[Bantamzen]

If this gets in then would the workers forced to run these minimum services still be described as “scabs” ?

Quite frankly if anyone is still using this odious name towards any of their colleagues they need to be totally ashamed of themselves. This is 2023 not 1983.

As for this law, well quite frankly the government have been spoiling for this kind of thing for a while. And sadly the actions of the unions across all sectors has helped this along, despite them all being very aware that this was a possibility. As a long standing union member I am deeply saddened by its implementation and angry at the union movement for having slept-walked into this.

If you get up at ridiculous hours of the day to go to work you’re working class.

Seriously? So for example airline pilots are working class, but people who work in shops aren't?

 

[387star]

It's now illegal to use Agency Workers to cover strike action after a High Court ruling brought about by ASLEF. I imagine similar could happen here... also the House of Lords wanted to amend this legislation but they weren't listened to

 

[irish_rail]

The key bit that Mick Whelan points out is that a driver does not have to cross an aslef picket lines. So they simply won't. The employer will have no comeback. Sure you MAY get a tiny handful who will cross a picket line , but that won't be enough to run any kind of service. It simply will not work. Its more Tory pie in the sky nonsense, its as if a 2 year old dreamed it up.

 

[Norm_D_Ploom]

Given the massive subsidies the taxpayer gives to the UK rail industry,the least we can expect is for employees to turn up for work when they are legally obliged to do so.

 

[jrail1992]

We won't see this in effect until later this year or early 2024. I assume if Labour gets into power then they'll scrap it.

I'd be surprised if they did. Bear in mind the labour leader banned his MPs to join unions on picket lines. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[AlterEgo]

We won't see this in effect until later this year or early 2024. I assume if Labour gets into power then they'll scrap it.

Prepare to be disappointed!

 

[Mojo]

I’m still intrigued about how this works in practice. I get that the company could say for instance, in order to run the minimum service we need 60% of drivers and station staff to come in. But how would this work with control grades or signalling where in many cases you need everyone or almost everyone (which could only be one or two people in any case) to come in?

 

[johncrossley]

If this gets in then would the workers forced to run these minimum services still be described as “scabs” ?

Presumably this legislation is great for staff that actually want to work but are too scared to at the moment.

 

[Horizon22]

Whilst I’m not sure how this is going to work in practice (if a grade is on strike and they won’t for example, drive trains that’s the end of the matter!) some of the comments are silly.

For example for overcrowding, the stations would just implement crowd control to prevent dangerous platforms.

Given the massive subsidies the taxpayer gives to the UK rail industry,the least we can expect is for employees to turn up for work when they are legally obliged to do so.

If they’re on a formalised strike, they don’t have to. They’ve withdrawn their labour, that’s the point.

 

[Train_manager]

So my understand is nothing has changed for union members?

They can simply refuse to cross the picket line? Is that correct?

 

[Bantamzen]

Whilst I’m not sure how this is going to work in practice (if a grade is on strike and they won’t for example, drive trains that’s the end of the matter!) some of the comments are silly.

For example for overcrowding, the stations would just implement crowd control to prevent dangerous platforms.



If they’re on a formalised strike, they don’t have to. They’ve withdrawn their labour, that’s the point.

Well that has now changed. Quite how it will work I've no idea, but I imagine this might open the door for companies / organisations to take legal action against unions and possibly even it's members if sufficient numbers aren't working during dispute. Pandora's box has been opened...

 

[Train_manager]

What century are you in using that terminology?

I have never met anyone in Ambulance service, fire and rescue, nuclear industry, Education, or border force etc that would describe themselves as working class.

Have you met a working class train driver on middle class wages? Cos I'm one !!!!

I'm 100% working class thanks.

 

[a_c_skinner]

At risk of being "me too" I cannot see Labour reversing this. They were in power for a long time and the prior restrictions on IA remained in place. They may be more sparing in using the power by the SoS, or merely more remorseful when they do.

 

[baz962]

So my understand is nothing has changed for union members?

They can simply refuse to cross the picket line? Is that correct?

Of course. You can't be forced to work as such. But it takes away the legal protection and a company will be able to dismiss you aiui.

 

[Train_manager]

Of course. You can't be forced to work as such. But it takes away the legal protection and a company will be able to dismiss you aiui.

Wasn't there a Lords amendment to protect the striker's legal protection from dismissal?

Or have I misunderstood?

 

[Bantamzen]

Of course. You can't be forced to work as such. But it takes away the legal protection and a company will be able to dismiss you aiui.

Exactly this. It is, at the risk of being dramatic, a very serious body blow to the TU movement, especially those unions directly affected. There were plenty of people on these forums who dismissed this risk because "they wouldn't dare" or "it won't get through".

Well they did, and it has.