Taking Back Control or Smash and Grab Raid?

by Les May

WHATEVER Boris Johnson has to say about the reasons for his decision to suspend Parliament for five weeks many people, possibly a majority, will conclude that its purpose is to prevent MPs passing legislation to prevent the UK leaving the EU without a deal agreed by Parliament.

What this demonstrates starkly is that in practice the UK Parliament ‘taking back control’ of our laws from the European Court of Justice will mean the government of the day can always get its way because there is no higher authority to prevent this. In the extreme the UK Parliament could vote itself out of existence and establish Boris, or one of his successors, as dictator.

If you think this is fanciful I would remind you that it is what happened in Germany in 1933 when the Reichstag voted through the ‘Enabling Bill’ which gave full powers to Hitler.  Less than three months later all non-Nazi parties, organizations, and unions ceased to exist.

At present as citizens of a country which is a member of the EU our rights are protected by the ‘Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms’ (ECHR) which dates back to 1950. Article 3 of the First Protocol relates specifically to the Right to Free Elections. The ECHR is enshrined in UK law by the ‘Human Rights Act 1998’. What happens after we leave is anyone’s guess. Do you trust Boris Johnson to protect your fundamental rights.

In January 2019 this appeared on the UK Parliament website:

Human Rights Act is not safe after Brexit

In its response to a letter from the House of Lords EU Justice Sub-Committee, the Government has failed to give assurances that it will not repeal or replace the Human Rights Act – a stark contrast to its proclaimed commitment to ‘shared values of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms’.
The House of Lords EU Justice Sub-Committee wrote to Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice David Gauke in December regarding the rights of citizens post-Brexit. The Committee sought an explanation for the dilution of the Government’s commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Last week the Committee received a troubling response. While again pledging an unchanging commitment to human rights and fundamental freedoms, the letter from Edward Argar MP, Undersecretary of State at the Ministry of Justice, ended with reference to the Government’s intention to revisit the Human Rights Act once the process of leaving the EU is concluded.

https://www.parliament.uk/business/lords/media-centre/house-of-lords-media-notices/2019/january-2019/human-rights-act-is-not-safe-after-brexit/

If all this seems a little abstract here is a concrete example where the ECHR and the more recent Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union played a significant part.

Prior to the Fees Order of 2013 employees could bring and pursue proceedings to enforce their statutory rights in an Employment Tribunal (ET) or Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) without paying a fee. The Fees Order imposed a charge of £1,200 to bring proceedings for unfair dismissal, equal pay and discrimination claims, and £390 for lesser claims.

In launching proceedings for judicial review the trade union UNISON argued that the making of the Fees Order was not a lawful exercise of the Lord

Chancellor’s statutory powers, because the prescribed fees interfere unjustifiably with the right of access to justice under both the common law and EU law and frustrate the operation of Parliamentary legislation granting employment rights.

Seven Justices of the Supreme Court agreed it was unlawful and must be quashed. In paragraphs 105 to 117 of the judgement specific reference is made to relevant EU law.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0233.html

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union can be found at:

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf

Johnson has a reputation for not always telling the truth so we have to judge him by his actions, not his words. If this is what we can expect from him in the future then some Tory MPs are going to have to decide whether they are willing to continue with a dodgy prime minister in the shape of Johnson or hold their noses and risk a brief Corbyn led government calling an election in which their main rivals will be the Brexit party.

If the leader of the Scottish Tories resigns as seems to be a possibility, they are going to look an awfully weak bunch.

**********

Morning Star report: Judge Issues Damning Verdict on Blacklisting

A tribunal judge has issued a damning verdict on construction giant Carillion's use of blacklisting - and the weak laws which denied its victims justice.

Details of the judgement, which had been reserved from January, were released to the Star over the weekend and reveal stark criticism of Carillion.

Judge Snelson criticised the lack of legal protection for Dave Smith, an engineer who took Carillion to an employment tribunal after he discovered his name was on the illegal Consulting Association blacklist.

Carillion admitted that its subsidiaries Carillion (JM) and Schal International Management had used the Consulting Association's blacklist.

It also admitted that its managers supplied damaging and false information to the blacklist about Mr Smith because he had raised concerns about safety when he was an accredited safety rep for builders' union Ucatt.

Mr Smith lost his tribunal case because he was not employed directly but via an employment agency.

But Judge Snelson said the tribunal had 'reached our conclusion with considerable reluctance.'
'It seems to us that he has suffered a genuine injustice and we greatly regret that the law provides him with no remedy.

'We hope that he can take some comfort from the fact that the wrongdoing of which he complains has been exposed and punished and legislation passed designed to protect others from the misfortunes which he has experienced.'

Documents disclosed under court order by the Information Commissioner's Office show that Mr Smith's 36-page blacklist file contained detailed and sensitive information and entries relating to times when he had raised legitimate health and safety concerns.

Mr Smith, who is taking his case to Europe, said:
'The written judgement says that I have suffered a great injustice at the hands of big business.

'It is not just me but thousands of other workers who have suffered a grave injustice.

'The decision sums up by saying that, as an agency worker, I have no protection under UK law. In that case we need to change the law.'

Manchester Employment Tribunal: Claimants Blacklisted Electricians Tony Jones & Steve Acheson

The Pre-Hearing Review in the case of Tony Jones and Steve Acheson began yesterday on Wednesday 21st, March 2012. The story thus far is as follows:

Tony Jones is supported by UNITE the Union and represented by John Hobson from Doughty Street Chambers - who argued that the case should proceed to full merits hearing because the construction companies Carillion (and one time subsidiary Crown House Technologies), Balfour Beatty, Emcor (previously Drake & Scull), Phoenix and the employment agency Beaver Management had refused Tony work because he was a trade union activist on the following projects: Wembley Arena, Heathrow Terminal 5, Manchester University, Manchester Law Courts, Fiddlers Ferry Power Station. The information about Tony's trade union activism was shared amongst the construction giants in the illegal Consulting Association blacklist.

This was not just unlawful but was also in breach of Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Employment Tribunal has a duty under the Human rights Act to uphold Tony's human rights and therefore it was argued, the case should be allowed to proceed to full merits hearing.

The construction firms had 4 separate barristers in court and argued that the case should be thrown out because it was "out of time" as the incidents had happened many years ago.

Employment Judge Brain has retired to give a reserved judgement (expected in a few weeks). Judge Brain has a history of harsh decisions on this matter having already thrown out the vast majority of blacklisting cases for being out of time. The consequence being that despite pages of documentary evidence implicating the construction firms in blacklisting, very few blacklisted workers have had the opportunity to seek justice in the courts.

Steve Acheson is taking a claim against Dimension Data for blacklisting him from the Holford Gas Terminal construction project in Cheshire under new Blacklisting Regulations 2010. Steve is represented by Nicks Toms and funded by Unite the Union.

This is the first ever Employment Tribunal taken under the new regulations which were introduced in the last days of the previous Labour government in response to the Consulting Association scandal. All the evidence was taken today and the case continues tomorrow with submissions from the barristers. A decision is expected tomorrow afternoon.

Steve said after the hearing yesterday:
'the managers from the blacklisting firms have been put through the mangle today but to fight the blacklist the unions need to do more than just support individual workers in court. We need to launch a proper campaign against this human rights abuse.'