Tough curbs on unions planned

The Government is proposing some of the toughest employment legislation since the Second World War, making it difficult or impossible for unions to mount effective industrial action in a wide range of industries.

In a draft Green Paper leaked to the TUC, ministers reveal plans to give companies and individuals rights to prevent "disproportionate or excessive" stoppages, particularly in monopoly services.

Industrial Action and Trade Unions much further than unions feared - doubling the notice period for stoppages from seven to 14 days and enforcing fresh ballots every three months where action continues.

Under the proposals, ballots will also require a majority of those entitled to vote, not simply a majority of those voting. If that rule applied now, postal workers would not have a mandate for their present action against Royal Mail.

Other suggestions by the Government were labelled as "vindictive and small-minded" by TUC officials. Rights to time off for union activities would be abolished, and there would no longer be an obligation on management to provide information on which to base collective bargaining.

By far the most serious element of the proposed law is the plan to outlaw "disproportionate" action. The paper makes clear that recent strikes affecting the fire service, public transport and the postal service would have come within the scope of such laws. Unions that fell foul of injunctions could expect fines for contempt of court and sequestration of assets.

John Monks, general secretary of the TUC, said ministers were "plumbing new depths" in an attempt to make political capital out of trade unions. He said the provisions were confusing and could lead to thousands of court cases where judges would have to decide whether the impact of industrial action would be "disproportionate or excessive".

The paper suggests that industrial action would qualify if there were risks to life, health or safety; threats to national security or serious damage to property or the economy. Another provision which might be seen as a "catch-all" is where action disrupts "everyday life or activities in the whole or part of the country".

It acknowledges that there may be some "uncertainty" over the legislation initially, but this would be reduced as case law built up.

The paper makes clear that the strikes on London Underground this summer would have been declared unlawful unless the union maintained minimum services on all lines. The law could not be invoked where individuals had been "mildly inconvenienced".

Another example used by the document, however, is where a mobile phone network is closed by industrial action. Because it would be expensive to switch to another system, the document implies that a customer could legitimately seek redress. An official has added in parenthesis in this part of the draft : "We are looking for a better example".

While only a minority of trade unions had abused their power, the Government did not believe that relying on unions to "exercise restraint" provided sufficient protection, the paper says.

A spokeswoman for the Department of Trade and Industry said Ian Lang, President of the Board of Trade, would not comment on any leaked document. Mr Lang had however set out his views on why strikes with a "disproportionate effect" should be made unlawful.