 |
|
 |
 |
6. Closed Shops
- This provision seeks to deter workers in a workplace where more than 60% of workers are in a union from being members of a union or industrial association and as such is probably contrary to ILO Convention 87: Convention Concerning Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise.
- Such a provision is an arbitrary and essentially irrational use or abuse of legislative power.
- Such a provision should be an anathema in an advanced, democratic country.
- Such a provision is unenforceable without the use of draconian, undemocratic measures in the workplace.
- For such a provision to take effect, the following questions would have to be answered:
- Who is going to require each and every worker in a workplace to reveal their status, vis a vis, membership of an industrial organisation?
- Will workers be required to produce evidence of their membership or non-membership of an organisation to a Government official or will the employer be required to ask these questions and obtain the evidence?
- What will be the position if one or more workers refuse to reveal their membership or non-membership?
- What if one or more workers indicate it is nobody's business other than their own as to their membership or non-membership of an industrial organisation?
- Would members in a highly unionised workplace be required to resign their membership?
- How does one establish the "implied condition of employment" referred to in the legislation?
- How does one establish the "reasonably likely" test on employers laid down in the draft legislation?
- The serious difficulty in meeting or understanding the arbitrary tests laid down in the Bill is such a practical problem, and so susceptible to potentially unfair and unjust outcomes, that it overshadows any perceived mischief the Bill seeks to address via these new provisions.
The proposal is so unfair and unworkable it scarcely warrants serious consideration. The fact that Government members of the House have passed this part of the Bill speaks volumes for their commitment to "freedom of association". It should be rejected out of hand.
|