710 / 736
SOCIETY OF LABOUR LAW AND
SOCIAL LEGISLATION
At a meeting of the Irish Society of Labour
Law and Social Legislation in the Four Courts
Hotel, Dublin, on Friday, 12th February, Dr.
Paul O'Higgins discussed the relevance of the
current British Industrial Relations Bill for Labour
Law in the Republic. Both the British and Irish
Governments had been found to be in breach
of their solemn legal obligations under the Euro
pean Social Charter by a committee of independent
experts which had examined reports submitted
by both governments. If either Government was
to enact
legislation
in
the labour
law
area,
attention ought to be paid to the urgent need to
bring British and Irish law into line with their
international obligations.
The British Bill marked a new departure in
that it brought the law and lawyer into a central
position in labour relations.
The fundamental
question to be asked was whether one should
adopt the view of the Donovan Commission in
1968, that the law had not got a decisive role
to play in establishing good industrial relations,
or whether one should follow the present British
Government's view that the law could play a
decisive role. The Bill had been so rushed that
it was full of defects which could only be resolved
by litigation. Legislation in this field should not
be rushed, and was most likely to play a useful
role if it was based upon detailed consultation
with trade unions and employers as well as with
lawyers who had special expertise in this field.
The Bills
instead of seeking to improve the
existing relationship, appeared to be based upon
the idea that an alteration in the balance of power
between trade unions and employers in Britain
was necessary, and that the alteration should be
in
the employers' favour. Whether it would
succeed in this, or have any effect other than
creating a good deal of work for lawyers, was
doubtful.
Mr. John Carroll, General Secretary of the
Irish Transport and General Workers' Union,
also spoke.
THE BRITISH INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS BILL SYMPOSDJM
Dr. Kader Asmal presided at a meeting of the
Dublin University Law Society on 26th February
1971, when a symposium took place on the sub
ject of the British Industrial Relations Bill. Dr.
Asmal stated that the committee stage of the Bill
had been completed, and that, on account of the
guillotine procedure, no less than 100 clauses had
not been discussed at all. Trade union reform had
been based on flexibility, but now it tended to be
regulated.
Professor Kahn-Freund of London University,
said it was impossible not to have an attitude
towards a Bill which would produce such funda
mental changes in industrial relations by intro
ducing a very legalistic system of controls in the
future. In considering the Bill in a long-term con
text, one had to stress the small amount of assis
tance derived by lawyers from labour law. This
was due partly to the fact that, in the 19th century,
there had been a transformation in Britain from
an agricultural to an industrial country, as well as
a gradual extension of the franchise. In Britain
the power of the trade unions was greater than
ordinary political pressure — whereas the opposite
was the case on the Continent. In Britain, there
was an intensive dislike of legal formulas, and an
effort was made to keep trade union relations
away from the law. There was a strong feeling
among judges that they should not intervene, as
is evidenced by
White v Reilly
(1921). The socio
logical contractual type entailed collective bar
gaining for a definite period — this meant that
the parties came together to form a definite body
with rules. In the new legislation, the law tends
to be used as a social control. Even in considering
safety regulations, collective bargaining used to
supersede the law.
On the Continent, trade union legislation tended
to be declared void, if its provisions were not so
favourable to the worker as collective bargaining,
but in Britain such legislation was never demand
ed.
As regards the representation of workers on the
Board, on the Continent the whole question is
regulated by Statute. In Britain, there is no statu-
248