Armed Forces to have Trade Unions
Sunday Times:. .. .March 10, 2002. .. .Army forced to allow unions. .James Clark, Defence Correspondent. . . . . . . .SOLDIERS will be allowed to join trade unions for the first time after Ministry of Defence lawyers warned it would be illegal to continue to prevent them from doing so under European human rights law. . .Until now, the army has refused to countenance any kind of soldiers’ federation or union, which senior officers believe would seriously undermine military discipline. . .. .However, lawyers for the MoD say such opposition is no longer sustainable under Article 11 of the 2000 European Convention on Human Rights, which gives everyone the right to belong to a union. . .. .The MoD initially believed it would be exempt under a clause that allows unions to be banned if they jeopardise national security. Lawyers, however, have now advised that although the MoD could still ban strikes, it would run contrary to soldiers’ human rights to block trade unions. . .. .A senior ministry source said: “We think that, while we can avoid strikes and so on, we can’t stop soldiers banding together to form a federation to represent their interests. That’s a case we think we’d lose under the convention.” . .. .There is, however, likely to be an angry backlash from the top brass. One senior officer who commands more than 350 soldiers said: “The problem is that we’re unique. In battle it’s no good if a man decides not to attack something until he’s checked with his shop steward. This is the army, for God’s sake, not British bloody Leyland.” . .. .The MoD has long ignored successive demands — supported by rank-and-file soldiers — for a union. In 1995, the Bett report, an independent review of forces’ manpower and structure, found 66% of servicemen believed a union would be beneficial. More recently, internal army surveys show that as many as 77% now want representation. . .. .A loose, unofficial federation, called Colours, has existed since 1997. It is essentially a secret society, as membership would — until now — result in being sacked from the army. . .. .This is the organisation most likely to press ahead now with a challenge to the MoD. Legal procedure means that it must bring a formal legal case under the terms of the human rights act to change the Queen’s Regulations, which govern the military. . .. .Although any precedent set would apply equally to the RAF and navy, it is the army, with tens of thousands of private soldiers, which would be most affected. . .. .A test case to establish the precedence of the convention on human rights over Queen’s Regulations would also see the MoD fight to try to limit any new military union’s powers. . .. .The organisation or organisations which finally emerge are most likely to mirror the Police Federation. Although far from militant, the federation is well-known for taking issues which affect its members — who do not have the right to strike — direct to ministers or the press. . .. .There are a number of contentious issues facing soldiers, many of which they would wish to take up through a federation. So-called Gulf war syndrome is a major issue, as is the standard of accommodation in the army, as well as disciplinary procedures and the thorny issue of pay. . .. .In the latest issue of Soldier magazine, Corporal D Fox, of the Royal Signals, based in Hampshire, writes: “The Police Federation represents every officer in England and Wales, without membership fees. It provides a means of bringing the officers’ views on welfare and efficiency to the notice of the government. Such an organisation for military personnel would provide a much-needed independent and professional support network.” . .. .A spokesman for the MoD said: “We have to accept that soldiers are free to join whatever union they wish and an entire regiment could all join a single union. Currently, there is not a case pending for the formation of an army union, but the legal advice is that we think that soldiers could form a group under the law — although how closely that would resemble a traditional trade union is open to question. ”Trade union support for the government could haemorrhage because of an “explosive cocktail” of issues, the TUC’s general secretary warned yesterday. John Monks said Labour was leaving space for other mainstream parties to occupy. . .. .If the government gave the appearance of “undue respect” for business, relations with unions would worsen. He said there was now a feeling that Blair’s government was resigned to the decline of manufacturing and to the involvement of the private sector in public services, issues which have infuriated unions.. . . . . . <a href="http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/article/0,,177-231271,00.html" target="_blank">Sunday Times (need to register)</a>