Unions win problem towards company workers filling in for placing staff

Unions have received a authorized problem towards a regulation change which allowed firms to make use of company workers to fill within the roles of placing staff.

The change was launched when Kwasi Kwarteng was enterprise secretary underneath Boris Johnson in July last year.

Mr Justice Linden was scathing in his written judgement.

Politics newest: Rishi Sunak says public sector pay rises ‘final’

He mentioned the minister – who went on to turn into Liz Truss’s ill-fated chancellor – was “not sufficiently” to ask for evaluation from civil servants so he may assess how the regulation change would really be applied.

Mr Justice Linden mentioned the “decision was to proceed at exceptional speed” regardless of considerations from the civil service in regards to the “effect on parliamentary scrutiny” and “without any further consultation at all”.

The change in regulation was launched as a statutory instrument – which means there was much less scrutiny than on typical legislating.

Unions condemned the move as “reckless” on the time, and launched the authorized motion almost immediately.

It amended the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003.

The authorized problem was introduced by a gaggle of greater than 10 unions, together with Aslef, Unite and Usdaw, and coordinated by the Trades Union Congress (TUC).

Richard Arthur, the lawyer for the TUC, mentioned: “The judgment makes clear that the then secretary of state had a staggering disregard to his legal obligations when introducing legislation that enabled employers to engage agency workers to cover the duties of striking workers. He was driven solely by a political ideology to meet a self-imposed deadline to implement the regulations in the face of mounting industrial action across the country.

“He took this determination however recommendation he obtained that it was prone to be counter-productive to the issue he needed to handle and was being rushed by with out regard for the responsibility to seek the advice of, which was a basic authorized requirement.

“This is bad law-making made ‘on the hoof’ and the court has rightly held the government to account”.

Paul Nowak, the TUC basic secretary, mentioned bringing in company workers throughout strikes “risks endangering public safety”.

Sharon Graham, the top of the Unite union, mentioned: “The government’s decision to allow employers to recruit agency workers to undermine legal strike action was a cynical move to back their friends in business and weaken workers’ legal rights to withdraw their labour.”

The authorities’s authorized staff argued the regulation modifications had been “modest”.

Mr Justice Linden added: “This was not an all or nothing decision: there could have been a shortened consultation, and/or one with a more limited group of consultees.

“There isn’t any signal that this feature was even thought of.

“This was despite the lack of an impact assessment at the time of the decision, and despite the evidence available to Mr Kwarteng being that the measure would have negligible beneficial impact in the short term and, quite possibly, an adverse impact on the government’s ability to settle ongoing industrial disputes.”

A spokesman for Thompsons Solicitors, which represented the TUC and unions, mentioned after the ruling: “Mr Justice Linden found that the government had acted unlawfully in not consulting with the unions.”

A Department for Business and Trade spokesperson mentioned: “We are disappointed with the High Court’s decision as we believed the decision to repeal the ban on agency workers covering strikes complied with our legal obligations.

Click to subscribe to the Sky News Daily wherever you get your podcasts

“The ability to strike is important, but we maintain there needs to be a reasonable balance between this and the rights of businesses and the public.

“We will take into account the judgement and subsequent steps fastidiously.”