Tag Archives: employment rights act

The latest implementation of the Employment Rights Act is not an attack on order; it is a move away from procedural friction and towards fair, workable industrial relations. Liberal Democrats should say so.

The Employment Rights Act changes now taking effect should be easy for Liberal Democrats to welcome. Not because we owe any particular institution a blank cheque, but because we believe in free association, fair process, and accountable power. In the labour market, power is not held only by the state; employers also hold it.

For a decade, trade union law drifted towards procedural friction. The Trade Union Act 2016 added extra thresholds and compliance burdens that went well beyond the basic question a liberal state should ask: is the action lawful, transparent, and democratically authorised? The Government’s own factsheet is clear that the point of repeal is to remove “unnecessary restrictions and red tape” and to reset industrial relations towards co-operation.

What has changed is not the removal of rules, but the removal of rules designed to make lawful collective action harder in practice. The 40 per cent support threshold for “important public services” ballots has been overturned; strike mandates now last 12 months rather than six; and the notice period for industrial action has been reduced from 14 days to 10. Requirements around picket line supervision have been scrapped, and protections against dismissal during a 12-week protected period of lawful action have been restored.

These details matter. When the law becomes a maze, disputes do not disappear; they become more bitter, more legalistic, and harder to settle. Unions and employers end up spending energy on compliance theatre rather than negotiation. Shortening the notice period to 10 days still leaves time to plan safely, but it reduces the incentive for brinkmanship and delay.

There is also a clean civil liberties argument. The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 allowed employers in key public services to require specific individuals to work on strike days. Whatever one thinks about service continuity, naming individuals and compelling labour are heavy tools for a liberal democracy. Its repeal at Royal Assent was therefore a welcome return to negotiation over compulsion.

The reforms also take aim at politicised regulation. Both UNISON and the Government factsheet highlight the narrowing of the Certification Officer’s remit, so it is driven by member complaints rather than third-party fishing expeditions, alongside the removal of the Certification Officer levy. Liberals should recognise the principle here: regulators should uphold integrity and member rights, not act as instruments of political harassment.