header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
06 November 2015 / Chris Syder
Issue: 7675 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Striking out

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_7675_syder

Chris Syder discusses the TUC’s challenge to the Trade Union Bill

On 15 July 2015, the UK government published its controversial Trade Union Bill for public consultation. The union movement has responded robustly asserting that “if it becomes law it will make the lives of all working people a lot tougher, giving a green light to bad bosses to behave badly by undermining the ‘right to strike’”.

The TUC also lodged a formal complaint to the International Labour Organisation’s (ILO) Committee of Experts on 10 September. How easy will it be for the TUC to seek international support for the “right to strike”; and how effective?

The ILO’s committee of experts

The ILO promotes social justice and internationally recognised human and labour rights. It is part of the United Nations system. The ILO’s Committee of Experts (Experts) comprises 20 eminent jurists appointed by the ILO’s Governing Body. The Experts’ role is to provide an impartial and technical evaluation of the state of application of international labour standards, such as ILO Conventions.

The TUC’s complaint to the

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Kennedys—Milan Devani

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Chief information officer appointment strengthens technology leadership

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Firm strengthens Wilmslow team with two solicitor appointments

DWF—Ian Plumley

DWF—Ian Plumley

Londoninsurance and reinsurance practice announces partner appointment

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Surrogacy children caught in succession gap
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
NLJ this week: Online safety law at a crossroads
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
NLJ this week: Do Mandelson and Mountbatten-Windsor meet the misconduct bar?
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
NLJ this week: Supreme Court unlocks ‘lost years’ windfall for injured children
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
NLJ this week: Finality trumps freedom in arbitration showdown
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll