Read the full policy brief (pdf) - CBI

If 1000 people are balloted and turnout is only300, the strike could not ahead even if all voterssupport strike action. This is because theproportion of the balloted workforce would fallbelow the 40% threshold.This would help ensure the views of ordinaryunion members prevail, and that majordisruption cannot be triggered by a relativelysmall but active group.(TULRCA), including maintaining accuratemembership records. The law should providegreater clarity about the definition of a ‘unionmember’ in order to ensure only paid-upmembers are eligible to take part in a strikeballot.A number of recent strike threats have beenaverted because unions neglected to follow rulesabout balloting that are clearly set out in law. Forexample, in one high-profile dispute, unionsfailed to maintain accurate membership recordsand balloted former members and long-closedsites. vi This led to the strike being ruled out oforder by the courts. These cases causeunnecessary disruption and incur significantcosts for employers, unions and, ultimately, theirmembers.The government could provide a solution to thisproblem by defining union membership in law.At present, membership is defined only inindividual union rulebooks, where definitions arefrequently very loose, sometimes includingpeople who stopped paying their subscriptionslong ago. In the interests of fairness andsimplicity, a legal definition could set out thatmembers who have not paid their subscriptionfor, say, three months should be ineligible totake part in a ballot. The union should also be ina position to prove that everyone who takes partin a ballot is a member.Unions should make greater efforts to complywith the requirements of the Trade Unions andLabour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992Trade unions should be required to keep recordsup to date in the interest of transparency,responsibility and to minimise costly litigation.Currently, the law requires unions to maintain aregister of the names and addresses of theirmembers and “so far as is reasonablypracticable” keep them accurate. But simplymeasuring the presence or absence of data doesnot provide any evidence that it is accurate.There is no sanction for failure to keep accuraterecords unless a union member applies to theCertification Officer – the unions’ regulator – orthe court.Given the cost of litigation for unions, theirmembers, employers and the judicial system,there is no reason why unions should have lessresponsibility for the accuracy of their data thanalmost any other organisation. Computerisationand electronic communication systems haverevolutionised the quality of data maintenance.Most other regulated bodies, employers and, forexample, pension schemes, can be subject tocivil or even criminal sanctions for poor recordkeepingand data handling.To simplify compliance and minimise litigation,unions should be required to conduct an annualaudit of their membership and make allreasonable endeavours to keep records up todate throughout the year.