NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

over their membership. By way of example, it is uncontroversial that religious bodies and political parties can generally regulate their membership to include only those who share their beliefs and ideals”. 956 The applicant union had represented all workers in the collective bargaining context and the expelled member had not been at any individual risk of any arbitrary or unlawful action by his employer. Accordingly, in the absence of any identifiable hardship suffered by the expelled member or any abusive and unreasonable conduct by the applicant union, the state had breached Article 11 of the Convention by forcing the trade union to readmit the individual. In responding to the judgement, the UK government has accepted that trade union law must be amended to ensure compatibility with the Convention. 957 The case of Swedish Engine Drivers’ Union v. Sweden 958 concerned the complaints of the trade union ‘Swedish Engine Drivers’ Union (Svenska Lokmannaförbundet)’ relating to the entry into a collective agreement. The applicant trade union alleged that the National Collective Bargaining Office’s refusal to enter into a collective agreement with it violated Article 11. It mentioned that this refusal caused a series of disadvantages, namely, it precluded the opportunity to appoint official trade union representatives, safety inspectors and representatives on various committees. The Court observed that the “Article does not secure any particular treatment of trade unions, or their members, by the State, such as the right that the State should conclude any given collective agreement with them”. 959 It concluded that the Collective Bargaining Office’s policy of restricting the number of organisations with which collective agreements are to be concluded, is not on its own incompatible with trade union freedom. Therefore, the steps taken to implement it escape supervision by the Court and do not contravene Articles 11 and 14 in conjunction. 960 The case of National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers v. the United Kingdom 961 concerned a trade union’s complaints about statutory restrictions on the right to strike. The organisation made two main complaints in this respect. The first complaint constituted that the UK law was too strict and detailed when it came to the organisation of a strike ballot. The second paid attention to the fact that the national legislation did not provide a person with the right to take secondary or sympathy industrial action. 962 With regard to the second complaint, this was the first time in the Court’s practice that it addressed the question of whether the right to secondary action falls within the scope of Article 11. The Court held that Ibid. 957 McKAY, S. European Court upholds trade union right to veto members (online). URL: accessed 2 March 2015. 958 Swedish Engine Drivers’ Union v. Sweden , 6 February 1976, Series a no. 20. 959 Ibid. , § 39. 960 ARNARDÓTTIR, O. Equality and Non-Discrimination Under the European Convention on Human Rights . Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2003, p. 131. 961 National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers , cited above. 962 Trade Union’s ‘right to strike’ human rights dispute with UK authorities set for court decision (online). URL: < http://www.humanrightseurope.org/2014/04/trade-unions-right-to-strke-human-rights-dispute-with uk-government-set-for-court-decision/> accessed 20 July 2015. 956

176