Union busting

The term union busting is associated with the behaviour of an employer who undertakes to replace employees at the workplace, whether temporary or not, who have withdrawn their labour as a form of legitimate protest action. It is to be understood that the action is taken in an effort to settle a dispute with the employer. The legitimacy of the action is grounded in the fact that it is supported, approved or sanctioned by the trade union which is representative of the employees.

The employer who embarks on introducing substitute labour at the workplace, at the time when protest action is being taken, can rightly be accused of attempting to break the protest action. Those who are engaged in the workplace as substitute workers are labelled as strike-breakers.

Union busting is defined as actions taken by an employer or management to weaken or destroy a trade union’s power and influence in a workplace. Simply put, union busting can best be described as an attempt by management to prevent employees from exercising their right to be unionised.

The decision of the employer to engage in union busting is a blatant attempt to prevent unionisation, to undermine and discredit the trade union, which is the recognised bargaining agent of the employees.

Union busting is well summarised as follows: “Union busting is a field populated by bullies and built on deceit. A campaign against a union is an assault on individuals and a war on truth. As such, it is a war without honour. The only way to bust a union is to lie, distort, manipulate, threaten, and always, always attack.” – Martin Jay Levitt, 1993, Confessions of a Union Buster.

This description of what constitutes and informs union busting, and engaging in its practice, is expected to be respected by the government as the largest single employer holding membership at the level of the International Labour Organisation.

Where the government in any jurisdiction seemingly ignores the fact that the constitution of the land, the labour laws and the International Labour Organisation (ILO) conventions that it has ratified, all provide for freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining, it stands liable for the non-observance and violation of accepted principles and standards that it is required to uphold. It therefore raises the question as to who guards the guard.

It is widely accepted that employees reserve the right to withdraw their labour. It is understood that this is done under the circumstances withdrawal is organised and supported by the trade union. In most jurisdictions across the world, union busting is illegal.

Where it is illegal to do so, employers engage in a range of subtle to overt practices. This brings to the fore the dangers that can be associated with union busting. Depending on the nature of the action(s), this can trigger a strong response from the workers, and can potentially ignite into a national crisis.

It is to be understood that organised protest action can eventuate into a partial or national work stoppage by employees. This is usually done for the purpose of forcing the employer to accept the employees’ demands. Some employers tend to overlook the importance of addressing the matter at hand, but are more prepared to engage in tactics that are aimed at weakening and destroying the trade union, in order to secure a non-union workforce.

Employees are reminded that they have the right to organise, and through their trade union, negotiate with their employer on the terms and conditions of employment. It is also important to recognise that trade union busting is an act of intimidation employed by the employer.

Dennis De Peiza is a labour and employee relations consultant with Regional Management Services Inc.