The Significance of Wilson v UK [2002] IRLR 568 Essay

The Significance of Wilson v UK [2002] IRLR 568 - Essay Example Respecting the right of association implies that governments need to ensure that its individual members of the public freely come together to express, defend and pursue unified goals and interest (Gross & Compa, 2009.p124) As such public authorities are refrained from interfering with individual’s right to assemble and associate. It is noteworthy that freedom of association goes beyond coming together for a common good taking into consideration that it also recognized joining associations aimed at attaining a specified goal. Freedom of association is recognized both locally and internationally in the context of industrial relation. Employees have been granted the freedom to assemble and associate for common interest in respect to the terms and condition of employment. This means that workers have the right to join trade unions and collectively bargain. According to Novitz (2002. P 176) this right is recognized by two vital conventions C 87 and C98 of the International Labour O rganization (ILO). This means that any action or inaction by the employer aimed at discouraging employees from joining trade unions is tantamount to infringement of the Freedom of association and as such is illegal. ... This claim can be justified by the enactment of the â€Å"Ullswater amendment†. This legislation was put in place by the Conservative government to limit operations of trade union activities Barnard, Deakin, & Morris, 2004. P150). Regulation of industrial relation by the UK government can be considered a breach on the ILO standards and ECHR conventions in three perspectives. First the regulations does not make necessary provisions for rights to participate in industrial action, secondly it does not protect organizers and participants in collective bargaining( Hepple 2005.p23) Finally the regulations places unreasonable constrains on the autonomy of trade unions, which is categorically granted to individual employees under Article 11 and 3 of the ECHR and ILO No.87 respectively. The case Wilson v United Kingdom case, which would later bring about far reaching consequences on the British labour laws after several year of court battle involved discrimination of an employee becaus e of his stand on trade union (English, 2011). Dave Wilson was an employee of an Associated Newspaper at the Daily Mail. Wilson was denied 4.5% salary increase because he refused to denounce membership of National Union of Journalists (NUJ) (Thompsons Solicitors, 2012). The condition for pay hike was that the entire team of journalists had to give up their right to the terms and condition put in place by the collective bargain. The aim of the management was to discourage participation industrial action. Wilson refused to sign the contract offered by his employer whereby he ended up losing on the pay incentive. Wilson through his lawyer later filed an application by the courts protesting action of his employer. Significance of the ECHR ruling It is no