The Prison Officers Strike - Essay Example

The Prison Officers Strike 1. Introduction The involvement of unions in the negotiations related to the rights of employees is considered as quite important in order for a satisfactory agreement to be developed between employees and the employer. However, quite often, the unions fail in proposing the appropriate measures for securing the rights of employees. The Prison Officers Strike in August 2007 in UK is an indicative example of the above case. The specific strike has been based on the vote of the union’s members but was ordered by the union even if its terms were not met, meaning a no-strike agreement signed between the union and the British government in 2005; also, by law, prison officers are not allowed to strike, like the police officers. The various aspects of this strike are analyzed in this paper. Relevant literature is used in order to explain the reasons for the development of the strike even if it was against the law. It is made clear that the strike has been morally justified but it was not appropriately organized, a fact that led to its opposition to the existing laws. 2. The Prison Officers Strike – characteristics, causes and role of each party 2.1 Overview of the strike The Prison Officers Strike began in 29 August 2007 and ended the same day. It was just a 24 – hour walkout, which, however, led to severe operational problems in prisons across Britain. About 20,000 prison officers and auxiliary staff supported the strike (BBC News 2007). The High Court decided that the strike was ‘illegal and unjustified’ (BBC News 2007) and issued an order for the termination of the strike. In the context of this order, prison officers had to return immediately to work. Indeed, ‘the prison officers in ‘Bristol, Canterbury and Long Lartin returned to work in the afternoon’ (BBC News 2007) while in other areas the strike lasted all day. Measures had been taken so that health and safety for prisoners is not set in risk; for this reason, during the strike, i.e. all day, ‘prisoners were kept locked in their cells while senior managers took charge of duties such as distributing meals’ (BBC News 2007). It should be noted that in Britain prison officers, like police officers, are not allowed to proceed to strike (Moore 2007). The 24-hour walk-out of prison officers resulted to severe operational problems in prisons across England, as for example to the cancellation of court cases (Russell 2007); also, visitors were not allowed to enter the prisons (Russell 2007). The strike led even to legal action by prisoners. In the case of Iqbal v. Prison Officers’ Association [2009] the Court of Appeal had to decide in regard to the claim of the claimant, ‘a category C serving prisoner’ (Criminal Law and Justice Weekly 2010), that in Wednesday, 29 August 2007, ‘he was not allowed out of his sell for six hours in opposition to his normal routine’ (Criminal Law and Justice Weekly 2010). The claimant supported that he had suffered damage because of the failure of prisoner officers to allow him out of his sell for six hours due to the strike, which was against the law. The Court held that the prison officers were not liable of the above action since they were not acted in bad faith (Criminal Law and Justice Weekly 2010). Also, the court held that the prison officers were not ‘directly involved in the imprisonment of the claimant’ (Criminal Law and Justice Weekly 2010) and for this reason they should not be considered as being responsible for non allowing the claimant out of his cell for six hours in the 29th of August 2007. The above case is indicative of the strong oppositions developed against the prison officers’ strike in the 29th of August 2007. It was possibly because of these pressures that the strike was finally ended within the same day. In any case the strike helped towards the promotion of the claims of the prison officers for pay increase; the Ministry of Justice has asked the union to come back for negotiations on the level of wages of prison officers (Moore 2007). 2.2 Causes of the strike The union, the Prison Officers Association, decided to announce the strike after the failure of negotiations with the government in regard to the increase of the wages of prison officers (Moore 2007). In accordance with Steve Gough, ‘assistant vice chair of the POA’ (Moore 2007), the strike was unavoidable since the government has refused to accept ‘the pay increase recommended by the Independent Pay Review Board’ (Moore 2007). On the other hand, for quite a long time, the prison officers have stated their concerns for their safety; at that period, in 2007, the Ministry of Justice had proposed the limitation of the security checks on prisoners from daily to weekly (Moore 2007). Such initiative would result to ‘the increase of attacks against the prison officers and the increase of drug abuse’ (Moore 2007), an argument, which has been also used for justifying the strike of the 29 August; as noted by the union’s representatives, ‘the attacks against prison officers had been increased by 34% since 2001’ (Moore 2007), a fact indicating the level at which the health and safety of prison officers is being threatened on a daily basis. 2.3 Initiator of the strike The strike began as a result of a strong conflict between the Prison Officers Association and the government in regard to the level of wages of prison officers (Moore 2007). It should be noted that they were the members of the union who decided the strike (Moore 2007); indeed, in a relevant meeting, two-weeks before the strike, the prison officers have voted in favour of the strike, a decision that was binding for the union (Moore 2007). The union decided to order the strike, but only after the failure of the negotiations with the Ministry of Justice (Moore 2007). 2.4 Role of management/ state The Ministry of Justice had been in negotiations with the union for many years before the strike was developed. However, it seems that the claims of the police officers were not accepted. Indeed, in accordance with a statement released by the POA, prison officers had to face ‘a below-inflation pay award, poor conditions and low morale’ (Sturcke 2007). The fact that the Ministry had tried to continue the negotiations with the union cannot lead to the assumption that it had no involvement in the development of the strike. More specifically, if the Ministry had taken the appropriate measures for ensuring the health and safety of prison officers and for providing to the prison officers a fair compensation – taking into consideration the conditions in the workplace – then the strike would not have taken place. 2.5 Role of the Prison Officers Association In 2005, a ‘no-strike agreement was signed between the government and the Prison Officers Association’ (POA) (Russell 2007). In the context of the above agreement, the right of the POA to order the strike has been strongly criticized. In fact, as explained above, the High Court has held that the strike was ‘illegal and unjustified’ (Moore 2007). The union should have followed the terms of the agreement; in case that the strike was considered as the only means for protecting the interests of the prison officers, then a different approach would have been used. More specifically, the union should have checked the termination of the agreement; in May 2007 the union had sent a notice to the government through which the willingness of the union for the termination of the no-strike agreement was announced (Russell 2007). However, the above notice would have expired in 12 months, i.e. in May of 2008. The union should have ordered the strike after the end of the above period. Then, the use of the strike for promoting the interests of the union’s members could not be backed as ‘illegal’. It should be noted though that 85% of the union’s members has voted in favour of the strike (Moore 2007). In other words, the members of the union supported the decision of POA to proceed to strike, a fact indicating the importance and the seriousness of the workers’ claims. In accordance with the above, the POA ordered the strike due to the pressure of its members; however, it should have taken the necessary measures so that the strike could not be backed as ‘illegal’. For this reason, it can be argued that POA did not follow the appropriate process for supporting its members’ rights; POA ordered the strike but it did not prepared appropriately the specific process, eliminating actually its value as a tool for supporting the interests of prison officers. 3. Evaluation of the Prison Officers Strike using appropriate theories As already explained above, in UK the prison officers are not allowed to strike, as also the police officers. However, the evaluation of their decision to proceed to strike cannot be complete, unless reviewing the literature published in this field. Prison officers have a critical position in the British judicial system, and it is perhaps for this reason that their decision to strike does not seem as justifiable – at least at a first level. However, the literature related to this subject seems to justify the specific initiative of the prison officers. Prison officers offer their services in the context of a particular agreement with the employer (state); this means that they have the rights and obligations recognized to them by the employment legislation. The above fact is made clear in the definition of industrial relations developed by Chamberlain; in accordance with the above theorist, the industrial relations ‘are equated with all aspects of labor’ (Chamberlain 1960, 103 in Kaufman 2004, p.43). On the other hand, Zagelmeyer (2004) has noted that ‘the collective agreements can be oral or written’ (Zagelmeyer 2004, p.63). The theoretical framework that would be most appropriate for explaining the specific industrial dispute is the governmental theory of collective bargaining. The specific theory was developed by Chamberlain and explains the collective bargaining as ‘a political process determining the relationship between the management and the union’ (Rose 2008, p.279). The specific theory of Chamberlain considers the collective bargaining as an initiative developed by ‘an industrial government’ (Blanpain and Baker, 2004, p.511). Indeed, in the specific case, the collective bargaining has emphasized on the terms of negotiation between the government and the union, meaning that its party has tried to secure its power towards the other side. The rights of the employees have not been adequately addressed, even if these rights are the key element of ‘industrial relations which emphasize on the management of labor problems’ (Barbash and Barbash 1989, p.106) and not on the clarification of the role and the level of power of the social and state institutions involved in the collective bargaining process. 4. Conclusion The decision of the prison officers to proceed to strike in August 2007 could be possibly characterized as too risky, as of its effects on the security of the public and the control of inmates in prisons across England. However, the review of the strike’s phases leads to the following assumptions: a) the strike has been used as the ultimate measure for promoting the rights of the prison officers (Politics 2007), b) the union had been in negotiations with the government for quite a long before the strike was ordered; no bad intention can be identified in the particular initiative, c) the prison officers had taken all necessary measures so that severe problems in the operation of prisons across Britain are avoided; certain operational problems were unavoidable, as also in strikes of employees working in other sectors, d) the British government has not provided sufficient explanations regarding its efforts in resolving the problems that prison officers face on daily basis. Under these terms, the strike of prison officers in August 2007 can be characterized as fully justified, even if it was in opposition with the law, a condition which may change in the near future; in October 2007 the members of POA started to raise funds in order to gain back their right to strike using ‘the new European Charter of Fundamental Rights’ (Berry 2007). References Barbash, J., and Barbash, K. 1989. Theories and concepts in comparative industrial relations. University of South Carolina Press. BBC News. 2007. ‘Prison officers' pay strike ends’ [29.8.2007] Online, Available from Accessed at 15 January 2012 Berry, M. 2007. ‘Prison officers save to fund European Court of Justice action over right to strike’ [24.10.2007] Personnel Today. Online. Available from < http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2007/10/24/42956/prison-officers-save-to-fund-european-court-of-justice-action-over-right-to-strike.html> Accessed at 15 January 2012 Blanpain, R., and Baker, J. 2004. Comparative labour law and industrial relations in industrialized market economies. Kluwer Law International. Iqbal v. Prison Officers’ Association [2009] EWCA Civ 1312, in Criminal Law and Justice Weekly, 9 January 2010, online, available from < http://www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk/index.php?/JP-Reporter/prisoners-kept-in-cells-owing-to-prison-officers-strike.html> Accessed at 15 January 2012 Kaufman, B. 2004. Theoretical perspectives on work and the employment relationship. Cornell University Press. Moore, M. 2007. ‘Prison officer strike 'illegal and unjustified'’ [29.8.2007] Online, Available from < http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1561591/Prison-officer-strike-illegal-and-unjustified.html> Accessed at 15 January 2012 Politics UK. 2007. ‘Government condemns 'illegal' prison officer strike’ [29.8.2007] Online. Available from < http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2007/08/29/govt-condemns-illegal-prison-officer-strike> Accessed at 15 January 2012 Prison Officers Association. 2012. Online. Available from < http://prisonofficer.org.uk/welcome4.html> Accessed at 15 January 2012 Rose, E. 2008. Employment Relations. Essex: Pearson Education. Russell, B. 2007. ‘Prison officers ordered back to work after strike chaos’ [30.8.2007] Online, Available from Accessed at 15 January 2012 Sturcke, J. 2007. ‘Prison workers end strike’ [29.8.2007] Online, Available from < http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/aug/29/ukcrime.prisonsandprobation> Accessed at 15 January 2012 Zagelmeyer, S. 2004. Governance structures and the employment relationship: determinants of employer demand for collective bargaining in Britain. Peter Lang. Read More