The Gazette 1967/71

THE BRITISH INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL SYMPOSDJM

SOCIETY OF LABOUR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION

At a meeting of the Irish Society of Labour Law and Social Legislation in the Four Courts Hotel, Dublin, on Friday, 12th February, Dr. Paul O'Higgins discussed the relevance of the current British Industrial Relations Bill for Labour Law in the Republic. Both the British and Irish Governments had been found to be in breach of their solemn legal obligations under the Euro pean Social Charter by a committee of independent experts which had examined reports submitted by both governments. If either Government was to enact legislation in the labour law area, attention ought to be paid to the urgent need to bring British and Irish law into line with their international obligations. The British Bill marked a new departure in that it brought the law and lawyer into a central position in labour relations. The fundamental question to be asked was whether one should adopt the view of the Donovan Commission in 1968, that the law had not got a decisive role to play in establishing good industrial relations, or whether one should follow the present British Government's view that the law could play a decisive role. The Bill had been so rushed that it was full of defects which could only be resolved by litigation. Legislation in this field should not be rushed, and was most likely to play a useful role if it was based upon detailed consultation with trade unions and employers as well as with lawyers who had special expertise in this field. The Bills instead of seeking to improve the existing relationship, appeared to be based upon the idea that an alteration in the balance of power between trade unions and employers in Britain was necessary, and that the alteration should be in the employers' favour. Whether it would succeed in this, or have any effect other than creating a good deal of work for lawyers, was doubtful. Mr. John Carroll, General Secretary of the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union, also spoke.

Dr. Kader Asmal presided at a meeting of the Dublin University Law Society on 26th February 1971, when a symposium took place on the sub ject of the British Industrial Relations Bill. Dr. Asmal stated that the committee stage of the Bill had been completed, and that, on account of the guillotine procedure, no less than 100 clauses had not been discussed at all. Trade union reform had been based on flexibility, but now it tended to be regulated. Professor Kahn-Freund of London University, said it was impossible not to have an attitude towards a Bill which would produce such funda mental changes in industrial relations by intro ducing a very legalistic system of controls in the future. In considering the Bill in a long-term con text, one had to stress the small amount of assis tance derived by lawyers from labour law. This was due partly to the fact that, in the 19th century, there had been a transformation in Britain from an agricultural to an industrial country, as well as a gradual extension of the franchise. In Britain the power of the trade unions was greater than ordinary political pressure — whereas the opposite was the case on the Continent. In Britain, there was an intensive dislike of legal formulas, and an effort was made to keep trade union relations away from the law. There was a strong feeling among judges that they should not intervene, as is evidenced by White v Reilly (1921). The socio logical contractual type entailed collective bar gaining for a definite period — this meant that the parties came together to form a definite body with rules. In the new legislation, the law tends to be used as a social control. Even in considering safety regulations, collective bargaining used to supersede the law. On the Continent, trade union legislation tended to be declared void, if its provisions were not so favourable to the worker as collective bargaining, but in Britain such legislation was never demand ed. As regards the representation of workers on the Board, on the Continent the whole question is regulated by Statute. In Britain, there is no statu- 248