Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
GCHQ
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
====Trade union disputes==== {{Main|Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service|GCHQ trade union ban}} [[File:NUCPS banner.jpg|thumb|right|[[NUCPS]] banner on march in [[Cheltenham]] 1992]] In 1984, GCHQ was the centre of a political row when, in the wake of strikes which affected Sigint collection, the [[Conservative Party (UK)|Conservative]] government of [[Margaret Thatcher]] prohibited its employees from belonging to a trade union, asserting that membership of a union was in conflict with [[national security]].<ref name="ferris"/> The government offered Β£1,000 to each employee who agreed to give up their right to union membership. Following the breakdown of talks and the failure to negotiate a no-strike agreement, a number of mass national one-day strikes were held to protest against this decision, believed by some to be the first step to wider bans on trade unions. Appeals to British courts and the [[European Commission of Human Rights]]<ref>{{cite web |url=http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=664551&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 |title=EComHR Inadmissibility decision of EComHR on application no. 11603/85 |year=1987 |access-date=15 November 2010 |archive-date=4 June 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120604022433/http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=664551&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 |url-status=live }}</ref> were unsuccessful. An appeal to the [[International Labour Organization]] resulted in a decision that the government's actions were in violation of [[Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=664551&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 |title=EComHR Inadmissibility decision of EComHR on application no. 11603/85 β The Facts |access-date=15 November 2010 |archive-date=4 June 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120604022433/http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=664551&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 |url-status=live }} para. IV</ref> A no-strike agreement was eventually negotiated and the ban lifted by the incoming [[Labour Party (UK)|Labour]] government in 1997, with the Government Communications Group of the [[Public and Commercial Services Union]] (PCS) being formed to represent interested employees at all grades.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.gchq.gov.uk/recruitment/union.html |title=Union representation |work=GCHQ website |access-date=12 April 2006 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060509054114/http://www.gchq.gov.uk/recruitment/union.html |archive-date=9 May 2006 }}</ref><ref name="ferris"/> In 2000, a group of 14 former GCHQ employees, who had been dismissed after refusing to give up their union membership, were offered re-employment, which three of them accepted.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/627574.stm|title=Sacked GCHQ workers win compensation|work=BBC News|date=1 February 2000|access-date=12 April 2006|archive-date=1 September 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170901074152/http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/627574.stm|url-status=live}}</ref> The legal case ''[[Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service]]'' is significant beyond the dispute, and even beyond trade union law, in that it held for the first time that the [[royal prerogative]] is generally subject to [[judicial review]], although the House of Lords ruled in favour of the Crown in this instance.<ref>{{cite book |first=Ewan |last=McGaughey |title=A Casebook on Labour Law |chapter-url={{GBurl|Wnx7DwAAQBAJ|page=323}} |publisher=Hart |date=2019 |chapter=8: Trade Unions |isbn=978-1-84946-931-9|page=360}}</ref>
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)