The Sunday Times FT - Trade unions, go slows and strikes

Trade Unions have been the centre of focus recently following the go slow by about 8000 workers at the port, demanding higher wages and the sudden work stoppage by about 3000 workers at the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation over the appointment of a chairman to the corporation.

The two separate trade union actions by the trade unions in the two public sector organizations had caused loss of millions of rupees by way of earnings and payment of demurrages and to chaos at petrol filling stations with vehicles queuing up to fill in their petrol tanks, with people wasting valuable man hours.

These actions of the trade unions had earned the animosity of a good number of people as they feared the escalation of prices of essential goods, and the already unbearable cost of living going up further. The absence of a compulsory grievance system to settle industrial disputes in the public and private sectors, and the absence of a compulsory notice period prior to work stoppage by workers as prevalent in most of the countries in the world, have led to many “wild cat” strikes in our country with the public being held to ransom by small sections of the community. Industrial work stoppages cause losses to the economy and hardship to the people.

Trade unions and their leaders are instruments of society and they should bear in mind that their actions should strengthen society on the whole and not just their members only.

The country and the public should take precedence over selfish interests. Unlike in many other countries there are no restrictions in our country on trade unions calling out their members on sudden work stoppages. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts and the freedom of the “wild ass” makes trade unions sometimes to act irresponsibly and to the detriment to the country. Trade unions have a legitimate right to strike except in a few circumstances but this right should be exercised responsibly and be confined to “trade disputes”.

In Sri Lanka trade unions often espouse and adopt political slogans and demands which are not necessarily for the socio economic betterment of their members but to promote political power. When trade union leaders are free to use their unions’ muscle power directly for political ends it is said it is the beginning of disenfranchisement of the people including their members. This is why perhaps “collective labour law confers freedom to strike or boycott only when it is in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute which definition is careful to omit political purposes and political disputes.” When trade union actions are often not over” trade disputes” as defined in the Trade Union Ordinance the immunity conferred by Section 26 of the Trade Union Ordinance (Cap138) would not cover the trade union and its officials from being prosecuted for damages. Trade union leaders in our country also try to arrogate to themselves managerial functions like the appointment of the Chief executive of the organization or his or her removal.

In the United Kingdom as the law stands workers who go on strike without the contractual notice can be lawfully dismissed on the grounds that they have repudiated the contract and have no right to claim ”unfair dismissal” save in the case of selective dismissal. Strikes in U.K are also constrained by the requirement of pre authorization by ballot of the trade union members concerned. In India if no notice of strike is given the strike is deemed to be illegal and it is not permissible to characterize an illegal strike as justifiable. In our country on the contrary there is no requirement of a notice period before launching on a strike.

Decisions to strike are taken by a few at the top and these at the top are often political appointees or politicians themselves who have their political objectives rather than the welfare of the workers or the public.

There is no democracy or transparency in the actions of most of our trade unions or in the election of their office bearers.

“Go slow” or “work to rule” is an insidious labour practice, highly reprehensible, and is calculated to disrupt the economy of the industry. It is subversive of discipline and amounts to misconduct for which the employer is entitled to award severe punishment. It is generally regarded as breach of the implied undertaking of the worker that in so far as he is capable of doing so, he should work at reasonable speed. “It is no answer for any of them to say I am only obeying the rule book. That would be all well done if done in good faith without any willful disruption of services” (Lord Denning M.R. in Secretary of State vs ASLEF (No2.) (1972) 2Q.B.455 (1972) 2ALL E.R.949). The parties should not interpret the rules unreasonably. An employee who deliberately works slowly and thereby produces less or does not complete the job in time or as soon as it could have been done is guilty of intentional omission of duty and the employer is entitled to terminate the employment of those workers without discriminating among them. In two local cases the Supreme Court of Ceylon (S.C/130/70, S.C.134/70 Lipton’s Limited v United Tea & Rubber & Local Produce Workers Union) had held that the employer in cases of “go slow “& “work to rule”can without dismissing all those participating in them, select some of them for dismissal provided that the selection is done without a motive for victimization.”

The government has a duty to preserve to the community the essentials of life in the face of disruptions by strikes and go slows just as in the face of natural disasters like the tsunami but with a major difference that it is a section of the community- a small section (bulk of the work force is in the informal and the rural sectors, are not organized and are not members of trade unions) which is responsible for the damaging effects to the economy and to the public and the government has to be more responsible and act firmly and justly to minimize the consequences of the irresponsible actions of these trade unions.