"Key findings
For workers, employer retaliation represents a major threat in
response to their participation in a strike. While dismissal is the
most visible form of such retaliation, it can also take more ‘hidden'
forms, such as demotion, disciplinary sanctions or withdrawal of
voluntary overtime. Addressing a notable gap, protections from
detriments short of dismissal are expected to be introduced into
UK law by the soon to be enacted Employment Rights Act. The
purpose of this brief is to situate the United Kingdom (UK) within
a broader set of comparative examples of how the law protects
workers from detriments short of dismissal for participation in a
lawful strike in eight other European countries (Belgium, Croatia,
France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Spain and Sweden).
The analysis produces several key findings of relevance to
policymakers:
• The legal framework should make sure that it considers all the
different dimensions of protection to ensure solid and broad
legal protection as gaps in one area can undermine the entire
system.
• Countries with broad protection typically rely on openended legal norms, such as prohibiting all acts ‘harming' or
‘discriminating' against workers or barring any ‘other prejudicial
treatment', rather than a closed list enumerating all prohibited
detriments.
• Proving the link between a detriment and strike participation can
be difficult for a worker, especially if the test is highly restrictive.
To address this, many countries provide for a reversal of the
burden of proof and legal presumptions favouring workers.
• Most countries offer a broad range of remedies, combining nonmonetary and monetary remedies.
• The law in most countries makes it possible for trade unions to
bring claims for detriment short of dismissal, in addition and/or
behalf of affected workers, acknowledging the collective harms
of such detriments and the risk of individual workers' reluctance
to take legal action due to fear of job loss."

Support: Digital

ISBN (PDF) : 2031-8782