Bosses challenge union power

The union Unite's national officer for food and drink, Jennie Formby, believes that pay remains a bone of contention in the food industry. She says: "The industry must recognise it has a responsibility. It shouldn't be paying breadline wages, or creating insecure work. Nor should it be outsourcing jobs and destabilising plants, or raking in huge profits for shareholders but imposing pay cuts on employees."

As far as further unionisation is concerned, Formby adds: "Unite is recognised in many major companies. Where there are difficulties in building functioning relationships with managers and companies, it is because they appear to have something to hide in terms of how they treat workers."

And there does seem to be a case to answer in instances regarding the 'anti-union' stance being adopted by some firms. Across the UK, unions are facing a problem from 'union busting' consultants. Formby says it is a tactic imported from the US that is now being used in the UK. It can take many forms, ranging from suggestions to workers that joining a union will result in them losing their jobs, to sending videos decrying trade unions to workers' homes. Under UK law, there is no legal recourse against this for the unions, she claims.

Partner in employment and pensions at law firm Field Fisher Waterhouse, Peter Holt, doesn't agree entirely with this view. "The system in the US is significantly different to what we have here. It is a lot easier, or there are more options, for employers in the US to 'de-recognise' unions than over here. It can be done in the UK as well but there are ways for a union to be 're-recognised' here."

The Food and Drink Federation's (FDF's) director of human resources, Angela Coleshill, accepts that union membership amongst the FDF's members has declined over the past two decades. But this is not the result of any employer intervention, she argues. Coleshill points out that in some cases firms have introduced employee forums to represent the whole workforce "precisely because union membership has fallen so low". These companies were acting on a desire to create a "truly representative body", rather than as a means to undermine unions, says Coleshill.

Unions in the wider workforce​

Certainly union membership within the private sector is much lower than it was in the militant era of the 1970s. And industrial action is the lowest since records began in 1891, according to Gregor Gall, professor of industrial relations at the University of Hertfordshire.

Nevertheless, last month, the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) issued proposals for stricter legislation governing strike action. The CBI called for a series of measures to be put in place, which Gall likened to a "shopping list" for the government to consider. The most significant proposal was for the threshold for strike action to be raised to 40% of the total workforce. Currently, unions only need a majority of participants to vote in favour of a strike, regardless of the proportion of the workforce that takes part. If adopted, the 40% ruling would have a significant impact.

The cuts announced in last month's comprehensive spending review will cause serious discontent in many sectors and may provoke industrial action over the coming months.

"Because of the hangover from the eighties and nineties, the trade unions want to flex their muscles to demonstrate to their membership and prospective membership that they can actually do something," says Holt. Strike action would be an ideal way for them to demonstrate they are not impotent when it comes to responding to spending cuts or pay freezes, he adds.

Holt believes the present situation is inherently unfair. "Unions could actually have a militant minority voting in favour of strike action while the disinterested majority does not say yea or nay, " he says. "On the continent you won't get the kind of situation where 10% of the workforce can vote through a lawful ballot in favour of strike action as they can in the UK."

Gall argues that any ballot for industrial action equating to 40% of the total workforce means that anybody who did not participate in the vote would be counted as a 'no' vote.

However, Holt and Gall differ on how likely it is that the 40% rule would come into force.

Holt says that while the coalition government is right of centre, the Liberal influence from members such as Vince Cable would temper any action. Cable has already indicated that there are no plans to tinker with union legislation. However, if a public backlash follows any widespread industrial action, that could all change as the government attempts to get tough with the unions, says Holt.

Gall believes that of any of the proposals made by the CBI, this is the one that would be most likely to make it into law. "Prior to the election it was the one proposal in terms of employment law that the Conservatives seemed to be most favourable towards," he says.

The CBI is not alone in calling for the 40% rule, however. The right-wing Policy Exchange think tank supports change too.

Gall says: "It would be much easier for the coalition to introduce the 40% rule. They would use the argument that it would make things more democratic in the workplace. "It would fly a lot more than an outright ban on strike action," he adds.

Whatever the outcome, the next two years are likely to prove a seminal point in union history. It will determine whether they have a future and relevance in today's world or whether they have had their day. If you believe Formby, the unions are more relevant today than they have ever been; facing new challenges, such as agency workers' rights.

Either way, the food and drink manufacturing sector could prove itself to be a bellwether for industrial relations in the rest of UK economy as we enter a period of spending cuts and reduced services.