THE NEW LAW OF THE CLOSED SHOP
| Date | 01 July 1983 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1983.tb02527.x |
| Author | B. W. Napier |
| Published date | 01 July 1983 |
THE NEW LAW
OF
THE CLOSED SHOP
THE
issues of principle raised by the institution of the closed shop go
so
deep that there is little room for compromise, let alone agreement,
between persons of different views. Nevertheless, the issues, as well as
being fundamental are also complex, and it is worth examining the new
law of the
1982
Act in the light of various different criteria. There
already exists elsewhere a general examination of the plan of the
legislation as
it
affects the closed shop and it is not proposed to traverse
the same ground
in
this article. Instead, an attempt will be made to
relate the content
of
the new law to certain features of post-entry
union membership agreements, as outlined in some current writing on
industrial relations.
By way of introduction it can be stated that the latest revisions in the
law do not bring any really new approach to the subject. Most impor-
tantly, they continue the now long-standing practice of legal regulation
of
the closed shop through the law of unfair dismissal. Even the
centrally important and controversial innovation of requiring work-
place ballots for the legitimising of existing closed shops can be seen as
an extension of a basic principle first introduced in the Employment
Act
1980.
Having said this, however, the practical impact of the changes
made in the law should not be underestimated; to an extent which has
not been seen since the days of the Industrial Relations Act
1971,
the
law attempts to equiparate the rights of unionists and non-unionists in
respect of union membership. This initiative (which extends beyond the
closed shop itself), taken together with the new regime of balloting
required for the legitimising of existing closed shops, and the widening
of the categories of individuals excused from membership of
a
closed
shop because of their own particular circumstances, embodies in
legislation the implacable and frequently-expresked opposition of the
present Government to the institution of the closed shop. According to
Conservative thinking, this brings an unjustifiable interference with
individual freedom and there are also objections to it on economic
gro~nds.~ Since, however, the Government recognises from experience
that outright abolition of the closed shop is impracticable within the
existing framework of industrial relations, it has resorted to a system of
rigorous
“
control ”-but it is a moot point whether this system is
really designed to contain the practice within acceptable limits or
whether it is more accurately seen as part of an overall strategy whose
long-term aim is to eradicate by a process of attrition the practice of the
R.
Lewis and
B.
Simpson,
“
Disorganising Industrial Relations: An Analysis of
sections 2-8 and
10-14
of the Employment Act 1982
”
(1982)
I1
I.L.J.
227.
Including aspects of the revised Code of Practice on the Closed Shop, which at the
time of writing exists only in draft form.
See,
e.g.
the Green Paper
Trade
Union
Inrmrmifies,
Cmnd. 8128 (1981), para.
263.
‘
Cf:
M. Alison, M.P. “the claim for individual liberty is based not simply
011
a
libertarian argument
for
the rights
of
many individuals but upon the deep convictions of
many individuals that the closed shop as an institution is far from being
of
proven collec-
tive benefit.” H.C.Deb., Standing Committee
G,
col. 882 (March
30,
1982).
453
To continue reading
Request your trial