Minimum Service Levels

PCS has condemned the government for promising to rush through anti-strike laws which would effectively criminalise strike action for thousands of our members in the Border Force and the Passport Office.

Given the important nature of the work that our members in the Border Force and Passport Office carry out, this legislation, which is at odds with international law, is dangerous and reckless.

That is why we will have no choice but to resist this vindictive attack on our members and workers across the movement by building mass opposition.

Background

This year has seen widespread industrial action in both the public and private sectors. The ongoing cost-of-living crisis has seen workers fighting to ensure that their living standards keep up with rising costs. Here in PCS in the Home Office we have not been any different and have taken widespread action including hard hitting periods in the Border Force and HMPO.

Whilst it would be logical to think that the response of any employer, including the government, would be to resolve these disputes through negotiation, that would be misplaced with the current administration. In response to action that has included civil servants, teachers, doctors, nurses and many other workers the government have pushed through the Minimum Service Levels Act.

Minimum Service Levels

A ‘Minimum Service Level’ (MSL) limits the impact of a strike by forcing workers to maintain a level of service in the industry they work. The Act allows regulations to be drawn up in health, education, fire and rescue, nuclear decommissioning, and immigration control. And that is where our members in Border Force will be affected.

It’s obvious that this crude legislation is designed to limit the effectiveness of trade unions and to undermine any potential future action. In doing so it fundamentally restricts the rights of our members to withdraw their labour and is an assault on the independent trade union movement. It could even lead to the absurd position of trade unions having to tell their members that they must come in to work on strike days!

We believe that the legislation potentially breaches:

• Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

• Article 3 of Convention 87 (Freedom of Association and the Right to Organise) of the International Labour Organisation (ILO).

• Article 8 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

• Article 6(4) of the European Social Charter 1961.

Implications for Members

This is serious stuff, an authoritarian crackdown on human rights completely alien to progressive European rights and the notion of freedom of expression. Whilst PCS have responded to the consultation in these terms the government have now published a draft Statutory Instrument which would mean:

“On each day of the strike, the border services are no less effective than they would be if the strike were not taking place on that day.”

Whilst there is some question about the service due to under staffing on a normal day, the clear implication is that our Border Force members are not allowed to take action which would affect border control. Of course, that’s the whole point of strike action – it’s not something we take lightly but the ability to withdraw our labour is a fundamental right.

The Statutory Instrument also refers to HMPO staff, and we believe this to cover members who have an impact in relation to national security and not cover regular passport creation. However, we still fundamentally disagree with this restriction.

All these restrictions reinforce the clear implication that our members are invaluable to the running of the UK and national security. The way to recognise that is not through taking away rights but properly remunerating our members to recognise their contributions.

Conclusion

This legislation affects members across several other sectors and the TUC has called a special congress on 9 December where PCS will be in attendance. The TUC Annual Congress also passed a strong motion about resisting this legislation and we will keep members informed of developments.

Members should be under no illusion that if this legislation had been in this year, then our members would have been prevented taking the action we took in Border Force, the passport office and across the civil service that brought about significant improvements to our pay awards.

This legislation is not about preventing disruption to the public but solely aimed at holding down wages without fear of push back from workers. The whole trade union movement must resist these laws.

James Cox (Group President), Pete Wright (Group Vice President), Mike Jones (Group Secretary)