Unison to appeal High Court decision over tribunal fees

Unison General Secretary Dave Prentis.

Unison General Secretary Dave Prentis.

Unison has today been granted permission to appeal the High Court’s decision turning down the union’s second Judicial Review application over the government’s decision to introduce employment tribunal fees.

The full judgment can be found by clicking here.

The Court of Appeal has already agreed to hear Unison’s appeal of the earlier High Court decision over tribunal fees. This hearing was stayed in light of new evidence showing a huge drop in tribunal claims which resulted in the second Judicial Review hearing. UNISON will seek to join these appeals and will seek an expedited hearing.

Unison General Secretary Dave Prentis said: “The High Court’s decision is disappointing but we will fight on and do everything possible to ensure that these punitive fees introduced by the government are abolished.

“Today’s ruling is a real missed opportunity to ensure that all workers can afford to bring an employment tribunal claim. Since the introduction of fees last year, thousands of workers have been priced out of justice and we must not let this continue to happen.”

Prior to the introduction of fees on 29th July 2013, the Employment Tribunals received an average of 48,000 new claims per quarter. However the most recent quarterly figures for July to September 2014 show that in that quarter there were only 13,612 new claims – 66% fewer than the number of claims lodged in the same period of 2013 (when fees were payable), according to MoJ figures released on 11 December 2014.

The Government’s decision to introduce Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal fees was challenged by Unison in the High Court in October 2013 and again in October 2014. The union argued that the introduction of fees would deny access to justice for workers treated unfairly by employers and would therefore be unlawful, and that the introduction of fees has a disproportionate impact on women.

The High Court in the first judicial review appeared to accept the union’s argument, but ruled that because the fees were introduced in July 2013 the full impact could not be judged. In the recent decision, following evidence of a 91% drop in sex discrimination claims, and an overall drop in claims of 80%, the High Court described the extraordinary fall in the number of claims as “striking” and Lord Justice Elias anticipated that some workers would have insufficient funds to bring claims.

Employment Tribunal claims dropped by 72% in the year following the introduction of fees, when comparing August 2012 to July 2013 with August 2013 to July 2014*. * See table C.1

Click here: Tribunals and gender recognition certificate statistics quarterly: July to September 2014.

Fees start at around £160 to issue a claim, rising to £250 a claim depending on the type of claim; with a further hearing fee starting at £230 to £950. Where claims are issued by a group, issue fees for a simpler “Type A” claim with 2-10 claimants are £320 with a hearing fee of £460 (hearing fee); and  a more complex “Type B claim” with over 200 claimants would require a fee of £1500 (issue fee) and a further £5700 (hearing fee).

Facebook Twitter Plusone Linkedin Pinterest Email
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Lib Dems Panic Over Employment Tribunal Fees

BIS Minister Jo Swinson - in panic over ET fees

BIS Minister Jo Swinson – in panic over ET fees

By Tony Burke, Chair Campaign For Trade Union Freedom

The Liberal Democrats have gone into panic mode as applications to Employment Tribunals plummet following the introduction of stringent fees to bring a case before a Tribunal.

There has been a 70% fall in the number of applications to employment tribunals with lawyers reporting that in some areas such as sex discrimination, it is down 85%.

Workers have been have been priced out of the tribunal system which the Lib Dems steered through parliament notably Vince Cable and Jo Swinson.

The figures have shocked some MPs and the Lib Dems fearing a major backlash have moved to distance themselves from the effects of the fees by demanding a urgent review.

Unions, employment lawyers and employers organisations predicted the massive fall in applications and the effect it would have on workplace justice.

Employment tribunal fees could become an electoral battleground as workers see there little chance of gaining redress for injustices at work particularly non unionised workers, who have no back up of union legal support.

The Ministry of Justice introduced fees of  £1,200 to workers wishing to go to tribunal – a plan hatched by George Osborne at the 2011 Conservative party conference. But the Lib Dems did the dirty work through BIS, as they did for the failed “shares for rights scheme”.

The MoJ had pledged to review the system a year after its introduction last July. It then said it would take place in the autumn, but still nothing has happened.

All this has prompted the Lib Dem employment minister Jo Swinson to panic and to write to legal aid minister Shailesh Vara to demand an urgent review: “There is a clear, necessary and now increasingly urgent need for this review to take place,” she said. “As a Government, we committed at the time of their introduction to review the impact of fees and, 18 months on, this is now long overdue”.

Breathtaking isn’t it?

But Shadow business secretary Chuka Umunna pointed out that the Lib Dems were part of the Government that introduced the fees in the first place, calling Ms Swinson’s letter “a cynical and utterly shameless attempt to distance her party from tribunal fees just five months before the general election”.

The Ministry of Justice points out that more people are going to arbitration instead of employment tribunals – which is not surprising as cases automatically are reffered to conciliation in the first instance before a ET case can be brought!

Facebook Twitter Plusone Linkedin Pinterest Email
Posted in Campaign For Trade Union Freedom News, UK Employment Rights | Leave a comment

USA: Labour Board To Speed Up Union Elections – Employers Say Its “Devastating”

Rich Trumka, AFL-CIO President

Rich Trumka, AFL-CIO President

In the USA the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) the body that governs ballots on union recognition (ballots) is set to put in place plans to speed up  union elections. The plan is being hailed as a victory for trade unions and a defeat for businesses.

The rule is aimed at “reducing unnecessary delays” that union officials say often discourages workers from unionising.

“Too often, lengthy and unnecessary litigation over minor issues bogs down the election process and prevents workers from getting the vote they want,” AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said in a statement. “We commend the NLRB’s efforts to streamline the process and reduce unnecessary delay.”

Trumka said the union election rule will give workers an opportunity to vote “in a timely manner.”

But business groups say the rule is unfair because it does not give them enough time to prepare for union elections. They say it also prevents employees from taking time to consider all the facts.

“Shortening the time frame before an election robs employees of the ability to gather the facts they need to make an important and informed decisions like whether or not to join a union and denies employers adequate time to prepare,” Jay Timmons, president and CEO of the National Association of Manufacturers, said in a statement.

The NLRB’s union election rule comes two years after a previous version was struck down in federal court. The agency reissued the rule in February with few changes, but believes it will stand up in court this time around.

Business groups have coined terms “ambush” and “quickie” elections to express their frustration with the rule.

The NLRB rule states that a pre-election hearing will be held eight days after a petition is filed, after which point the agency will “set the election for the earliest date practicable.”

Though the rule does not offer a more specific time frame for the whole process, business groups speculate a vote could take place in as little as 10 days.

This would be a dramatic shift from the current average of more than 30 days, business groups say. They have been painting the rule not only as a negative for companies, but also employees who they say will be rushed to make a decision.

Many US employers create time delays and legal challenges to run anti union campaigns, peddle mis-information and engage in outright bullying and harassment of union supporters.

“This is a devastating rule for employees through the retail industry,” said David French, senior vice president of government relations for the National Retail Federation.

“The NLRB already conducts a vast majority of representation elections within a reasonable time frame and this rule is simply unnecessary and unfair,” he added.

More on this story click here.

Facebook Twitter Plusone Linkedin Pinterest Email
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

CTUF – Trade Unions Against TTIP & CETA December 1st

Unite AGS Steve Turner; John Hendy QC and Unite EC member John Storey.

Unite AGS Steve Turner; John Hilary of War On Want and Unite EC member John Storey.

A packed public meeting organised by the Campaign For Trade Union Freedom at Unite’s London head office heard speakers explain the danger of the new generation of trade agreements, including the effects on employment rights.

Luke James of the Morning Star was on hand to report for the Morning Star.

The stitch-up of the shady EU-US trade deal that would see big business swallow public services can still be stopped, Jean Lambert a Green MEP insisted yesterday.

Jean Lambert joined trade union leaders to raise the alarm over the impact of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) on services and jobs.

RMT General Secretary, Mick Cash

RMT General Secretary, Mick Cash

RMT leader Mick Cash and Unite assistant general secretary Steve Turner were among the speakers at the Trade Unions Against TTIP meeting in London last night.

They warned that TTIP will damage workers’ rights and speed up the race the bottom in wages on both sides of the Atlantic.

Echoing their concerns, Ms Lambert said the deal is based on the “discredited belief that free trade is good for growth and jobs” and would hand power to big business.

Green MEP Jean Lambert

Green MEP Jean Lambert with John Hendy QC

But the MEP for London insisted a deal is not “inevitable” and said campaigning was taking its toll on Brussels’ bureaucrats.

She said: “Public pressure has brought greater transparency to the process and it’s clear that this pressure is having an effect on decision-makers — which is good news and shows that this agreement is not inevitable.

“Both national governments and the European Commission feel under pressure so we need to keep the pressure on?”

The Investor State Dispute Settlement is widely viewed as the most damaging part of TTIP.

It would allow privateers to sue national governments if they took democratic decisions that affect their profits, such as renationalising the railways.

The clause is also included in a similar but less well-known deal between the EU and Canada.

Carolyn Jones, Steve Turner and War On Want's John Hilary

Carolyn Jones, Steve Turner and War On Want’s John Hilary

Director of the Institute of Employment Rights Carolyn Jones told the Star: “Deregulation always leads to lower standards in the workplace, whether that’s in terms of pay, conditions or equality.

“The US has only signed up to two of the eight core trade union and freedom rights.

“The US unions are celebrating the deal because they think it means their workers get some of the same rights we have in Europe.”

She also reported that this attitude was the same that British unions took when the government signed up to the European social charter.

“But that’s not what happens. These deals always lead to a downwards spiral in employment rights.”

Facebook Twitter Plusone Linkedin Pinterest Email
Posted in Campaign For Trade Union Freedom News, European Employment Rights, International Employment Rights, New Generation Of Trade Agreements, UK Employment Rights | Leave a comment

Trade Deals : When Corporations Sue Governments

images-1By MANUEL PÉREZ-ROCHA

December 3rd, 2014

Sent to us by Ben Davis of the United Steelworkers.

 In 2004, the Pacific Rim mining company applied to dig for gold in El Salvador. Pacific Rim (since acquired by the Canadian-Australian company OceanaGold) assured the government of then-President Antonio Saca that its work would be eco-friendly and would generate jobs. But with 90 percent of the country’s surface water contaminated, and fearing damage to the Lempa River — an essential source of water for El Salvador’s 6 million people — the administration failed to approve the proposal. In 2008, Mr. Saca instituted a moratorium on new mining permits; to date, this has been maintained and is widely popular.

Pacific Rim fought back in 2009, filing a $77 million lawsuit with the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (Icsid), a World Bank-affiliated institution in Washington that facilitates arbitration between governments and investors. The case was brought under a 1999 Salvadoran investment law, according to which foreign companies could take the Salvadoran government to international arbitral tribunals.

Pacific Rim raised its suit to $301 million and the final Icsid hearing opened in September; a verdict is expected in 2015.

International arbitration is considered by its proponents to be relatively objective. Indeed, over 150 nations have consented to arbitration at Icsid. But corporations are increasingly using investment and trade agreements — specifically, the investor-state dispute settlement provisions in them — to bring opportunistic cases in arbitral courts, circumventing decisions states deem in their best interest. And now investor-state dispute settlement provisions may be enshrined in two new treaties: the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and Trans-Pacific Partnership, currently under negotiation between, respectively, the United States and the European Union, and the United States and 11 Asia-Pacific nations. If the final agreements contain these mechanisms, we can expect a flood of cases like Pacific Rim v. El Salvador.

Investor-state dispute settlement provisions feature in many significant pacts, including the North American Free Trade Agreement, and nine U.S. – E.U. bilateral investment treaties. Foreign investors can sue over alleged violations of myriad “investor protections,” including public-interest regulations that would reduce their profits. But it doesn’t cut both ways: Governments or communities affected by foreign investors cannot bring claims. Equally troublesome, tribunal operations are often opaque.

Today, countries from Indonesia to Peru are facing investor-state suits. Mexico and Canada have lost or settled five each under Nafta, paying hundreds of millions of dollars to foreign companies. In the largest award to date, Icsid in 2012 ordered Ecuador to pay $1.77 billion to Occidental Petroleum for canceling its contract with the corporation. And this October, it ordered Venezuela to pay $1.6 billion to Exxon to compensate for nationalising oil projects. Nearly 200 disputes are pending at Icsid alone.

American and European claimants have brought 75 percent of recent investor-state cases, according to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. Unsurprisingly, Washington seeks to include investor-state-dispute provisions in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

But opposition is growing. The European Commission president, Jean-Claude Juncker, refuses to accept that European courts “be limited by special regimes for investor-to-state disputes.” Sigmar Gabriel, Germany’s vice chancellor and economy minister, has warned of states seeing “policy objectives circumvented by the threat of damages.” Last month, the French trade minister, Matthias Fekl, too, came out strongly against investor-state settlement provisions: “We must preserve states’ rights” to “set and apply their own standards,” he told the French Senate. British politicians have made similar statements amid fears that such cases could solidify the increasing privatization of Britain’s national health service.

Such thinking is not unfounded, particularly concerning environmental policy. In 2012, the Swedish energy company Vattenfall sued at Icsid following Germany’s decision to phase out nuclear energy; though figures have not been made public, it allegedly claims billions from Berlin in compensation for shuttered power plants. And modification of a single set of regulations can trigger a flurry of litigation: In the Czech Republic, one change in energy policy yielded seven claims in 2013; in Spain, six.Investor-state dispute provisions need not be extended in new treaties.

The European Union should continue to demand the removal of these provisions from the TTIP They must also be expunged from the TPP. For El Salvador, a $301 million loss — just under 2 percent of its GDP — would significantly reduce funds available for health care and education. And even if Pacific Rim’s claim fails, as many expect, the suit has cost El Salvador almost $13 million to date — which amounts to nearly its entire environment and natural resources spending in 2013. Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia have officially denounced the Icsid convention. Though El Salvador likely fears a retraction of Washington’s substantial financial assistance if it withdraws, it should consider doing so as well.

The investor-state dispute settlement mechanism is like playing soccer on half the field. Corporations are free to sue, and nations must defend themselves at enormous cost — and the best a government can hope for is a scoreless game. As the TTIP and TPP negotiations continue, Pacific Rim vs. El Salvador should remind us not to privilege foreign investors to the detriment of the national — or global — good.

Manuel PĂ©rez-Rocha is an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington.

Facebook Twitter Plusone Linkedin Pinterest Email
Posted in Campaign For Trade Union Freedom News, European Employment Rights, International Employment Rights, New Generation Of Trade Agreements, UK Employment Rights | Leave a comment

Workers And Unions Win Great Victory in Victoria, Australia

Victoria's new Labor Premier, Daniel Andrews fought election on jobs and unions.

Victoria’s new Labor Premier, Daniel Andrews fought election on jobs and unions.

The Labor Party in Australia has won a stunning victory in the state of Victoria with a swing of over 2% – basing their campaign on fighting for jobs, decent employment rights and working families.

New Victoria Premier Daniel Andrews summed up the victory: “There are people who wanted this election to be about workers and unions – and that’s exactly what it was.”

The National Secretary of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Paul Bastian said the direct community campaigning from union members to put jobs and training at the front of voters’ minds helped set the agenda on election issues.

The success of unions in targeting key marginal electorates and undecided voters proved the decisive factor on election day in Victoria.

“Hundreds of AMWU members worked hard to defeat the Liberals – knocking on doors, campaigning in the community, calling other union members and helping on polling day,” Paul Bastian said.

“The Victorian result gives us hope that we will see out the Abbott Government after one term – we must keep up the pressure.”

 The solid swing against the Victoria Government was a stunning repudiation of its TV and print advertising, which tried to demonise Labor’s links with unions, an outmoded scare tactic which fell flat with voters.

Over 2000 union volunteers spent months blitzing four key marginal seats hit by manufacturing job losses and  cutbacks in southern  Melbourne.

The Campaign For Trade Union Freedom’s Australian correspondent Barry Camfield reports that former union official Natalie Hutchins is Victoria’s new Industrial Relations Minister, one of nine women in the 22 strong cabinet announced by Daniel Andrews.

Ms Hutchins worked as a union organiser and industrial officer at the NUW before becoming, in 1996, the first women to be elected as Victorian Trades Hall Council assistant secretary in the organisation’s history. In 2001, the Transport Workers Union employed Hutchins as a senior organiser.

Facebook Twitter Plusone Linkedin Pinterest Email
Posted in Campaign For Trade Union Freedom News, International Employment Rights | Leave a comment

Short Briefing On CETA

main_logoBy Nick Dearden,  First published on the World Deevelopment Movement website on 9th September 2014.

The Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) is a “next generation” free trade and investment pact that Canada and the EU have been negotiating since May 2009. It has taken nearly a year since the 18 October 2013 ‘agreement in principle’ was reached to iron out the ‘final difficulties’ and we now expect an announcement on its completion at the EU-Canada Summit on 25th September.

Member states have until 12 September to make amendments to the text – after which point it is essentially set in stone. However, this will only be the beginning of the ratification process, which could take up to 2 years to complete.

Based on the leaked text we have seen, we oppose CETA. CETA could unfairly restrict how local governments spend money by banning ‘buy local’ policies, and create pressure to lock-in privatisation of services.

We also have immediate concerns about how CETA will be ratified – and fear CETA could pass into force without being examined by MPs.

1. CETA is unlikely to receive proper scrutiny
As is usual with trade agreements, negotiating texts have been kept secret for the entire process to date. Even today, we only know what’s in the treaty through leaked documents. Formal texts will not be released until the negotiations have been completed, we anticipate on 25 September. To date, we believe that only the EU Scrutiny Committee has had any input into the negotiations. This exclusion of parliamentary input into the process is not a good start.

We anticipate CETA will go to the European Parliament in 2015. If the agreement is judged ‘mixed competency’, as we suspect it will be, it will then go to member state parliaments for ratification. We are seriously concerned that the agreement is still secret, and that it could easily pass through the British parliament with no debate and no vote. There will be no possibility of amending CETA.

We are calling for immediate release of the text and agreement that CETA needs full discussion, scrutiny and debate in the British parliament. 

2. CETA could come into force before the British parliament has ratified it
It is not unusual for trade agreements to enter into force before they have even been through this  minimum ratification process. Once signed off by European Council and Commission, it is possible for elements of the treaty to enter into force – including the ability of corporations to sue governments through ISDS (see below). We have been given no indication of how the process will operate in this case.

We are calling for CETA to not enter into force until it has been properly debated by the European Parliament and nation state parliaments.   

3. CETA will give Canadian companies (including companies with Canadian subsidiaries) the right to sue the British government for sovereign decisions 
Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions allow corporations to sue a government before a special tribunal rather than within the regular court system. Corporations can sue governments for ‘indirectly expropriating’ their assets, which in recent years has been interpreted extremely broadly to mean reducing the profits expected under an investment. This can be applied to many pieces of regulation and social policy, including the NHS and public education.

ISDS already exists in other, smaller, treaties and has been used to: challenge the placing of health warnings on cigarette packets, renationalising health systems, setting minimum wages, setting environmental regulations, setting prices for medicines, fining companies for breaking national laws. ISDS strongly discourages governments from taking democratic and sovereign action.

We are completely opposed to ISDS provisions. We call on the British government to remove ISDS provisions on 12 September. 

4. CETA will have a major impact on the British government’s ability to run public services, introduce financial regulation, protect the environment, support local business. 
Based on analysis of leaked texts we have seen, there are numerous reasons to be worried about the impact CETA will have on government’s ability to protect and regulate. For instance:

– CETA will help lock-in the private control of public services, whatever a future government decides. The Council of Canadians says: “If you privatize a municipal water service, or you create a public-private partnership and then the citizens of that same municipality 10 years on decide
 that they want to re-municipalize, then you open yourself up to an investor claim.”

– CETA will limit the use of procurement as an economic development policy tool and interfere with municipal governments, universities or hospitals which, for example, want to control their food purchasing policies.

– CETA includes financial services which means limiting regulation which a government can introduce on the banks without challenge. There is a caveat which allows a government to introduce ‘prudential measures’ (for example, to stabilise their economy), but the legitimacy of such action will be ultimately judged by a dispute panel of financial experts.

All of these potential consequences are very serious for any government’s ability to protect its citizens. At a minimum, they require serious scrutiny which has not been possible to date and looks unlikely in the future.

5. CETA is a model for TTIP – and global trade rules 
TTIP is the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership currently being negotiated between the United States and the European Union. TTIP is extremely controversial in the EU and US, with very broad implications. CETA is being seen as a model for how TTIP will be negotiated, ratified and enforced. If we allow CETA to be passed in an undemocratic manner, changing and stopping TTIP will be that much more difficult.

Both CETA and TTIP attempt to set a new ‘gold standard’ for international trade agreements. As such, the final resolution to these agreements has global implications.

Facebook Twitter Plusone Linkedin Pinterest Email
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Early conciliation figures may show that “workers could not afford to pay the fee to progress the case”

cwu__1346677317_Employment_tribunalFrom Thompson Solicitors Labour and European Law Review

ACAS has just published the figures for the number of notifications it received for the six months since early conciliation was introduced on a voluntary basis in April this year. In May, it became compulsory for anyone wanting to make a tribunal claim to first notify them in order to try and resolve their dispute before continuing with the claim.

Once a notification is made to Acas, there is an extension to the legal time limit within which the claimant would need to bring a tribunal claim should they decide to do so. The aim of early conciliation is to allow time for discussions to see if those involved can reach an agreement. During this time Acas has a legal duty to offer conciliation, but the parties do not have to accept the offer.

For the first month, Acas received approximately 1,000 notifications per week, increasing to around 1,600 per week for the rest of the period, more or less as it expected. All in all, Acas received just over 37,000 notifications during the period April to September. These figures include some group notifications and the total number of employees covered was just over 44,000.

Overall during the first six months, 10 per cent of employees rejected the offer of conciliation and of the employers contacted (which only happens if the employee has accepted conciliation), only 10 per cent rejected the offer of conciliation.

Almost all the notifications received by Acas between April and June have now had time to reach a final outcome and the statistics show that almost a fifth were settled by way of a binding legal agreement known as a COT3.

However, almost 58 per cent of the claims notified to ACAS did not progress to a tribunal claim. It is not clear why they did not progress. It may be that some were not worth pursuing but that cannot be the case for most of them. It is more likely that for the majority, no agreement having been reached, the worker could simply not afford to pay the fee to progress the case to tribunal.

Conciliation remains available up to the day of a case being heard by a tribunal and almost a quarter of cases (24 per cent) went on to be heard by a tribunal. By the end of October just under a quarter of those had been settled by Acas conciliators. This figure will, of course, continue to rise until all of these cases reach hearing date.

Jo Seery of Thompsons Solicitors commented: “The fact that nearly 2/3 of early conciliation cases did not progress is yet further evidence of the devastating impact fees are having on workers’ ability to access justice – it’s also pretty damning on employers if these issues remain unresolved in the workplace.”

Facebook Twitter Plusone Linkedin Pinterest Email
Posted in Campaign For Trade Union Freedom News, UK Employment Rights | Leave a comment

Wonk Out : Trade Deals – What Is Fast Tracking?

Facebook Twitter Plusone Linkedin Pinterest Email
Posted in Campaign For Trade Union Freedom News, European Employment Rights, International Employment Rights, New Generation Of Trade Agreements, UK Employment Rights | Leave a comment

O’Grady Warns TTIP Could Drive Down Employment Rights

Frances O'Grady Warns TTIP Could Drive Down Labour Laws

Frances O’Grady Warns TTIP Could Drive Down Labour Laws

Trade Union Congress General Secretary Frances O’Grady has warned that the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership would level down employment rights and labour laws.

Giving evidence to the House Of Commons parliamentary committee looking at TTIP she pointed out that the USA has only ratified two of eight fundamental conventions of the International Labour Organization (ILO) with key conventions such as the right to organise unions and secure collective bargaining, as well as the minimum age convention being ignored by the USA.

O’Grady said : “US workers were disadvantaged compared to the social provisions in the EU”.

She said that TTIP should seek to level-up on standards.

Giving an incident in South Korea in December 2013, when Korean police attacked national trade union offices with tear gas detaining more than 100 striking railway workers when the EU and South Korea entered into a free trade agreement only two years earlier.

“It appears the enforcement of labour standards amounts to strongly worded letters. We need to be clear about what the objective of the trade agreement is. We’re looking for opportunities to increase fair trade, wages and living standards,” O’Grady said.

She called for more incremental, inclusive discussions, conducted on a sector-by-sector basis and with the full involvement of all “social partners”.

EU and US officials have frequently said that TTIP does not pose a threat to standards – environmental, social or labour.

Facebook Twitter Plusone Linkedin Pinterest Email
Posted in Campaign For Trade Union Freedom News, New Generation Of Trade Agreements, UK Employment Rights | Leave a comment