The focus here is on the provisions that will affect employers around ballot processes. The aims are to:

The current need for a simple majority to approve a strike will still apply, but the ballot will only be valid if more than 50% of those who could vote do so. This moves the goalposts from the level of 50% plus one of those who actually voted, to a minimum of 25% plus one of those who could vote. This applies in all sectors.

If an employee works in an important public service (that is, health, education for under-17s, fire services, transport services, nuclear decommissioning and border security), then there is going to be a second threshold. The proposal is that not only more than 50% have to vote, but 40% of those who could vote have to vote in favour. That moves to a minimum of 40% plus one of those entitled to vote for these sectors.

Important public services can include employers and employees not only in the public service, but also where those services are provided by private third-party businesses. This includes where the services have been outsourced, and where the activities are ancillary to the service itself. For the moment, there is little explanation of how employers are meant to know where they stand on this issue.

Currently, ballot papers only have to ask in yes or no form whether employees will strike or take part in other industrial action. Under the proposed Bill, the ballot paper will have to specify the type of action, when and for how long the action is to take place, and the nature of the dispute prompting the action.

When the votes have been counted, those entitled to vote will have to receive notice of the outcome, as they do now, but in an enhanced form, identifying whether more than 50% of those eligible voted and, where applicable for important public services, whether more than 40% of those eligible voted yes.

If there is the necessary support for the action, then the trade union will have to give the employer 14, rather than seven, days’ notice before any action begins and the action must take place within four months of the ballot. So, unions are faced with a longer notice period and much less prospect of organising continuing action without re-balloting.

Aside from the 50% turnout requirement in all ballots, the major issue is the 40% requirement in important public services. It is extremely unhelpful that the definition of important public services will be set out in regulations that are yet to be published, and it is of little comfort that they will have to go before both Houses of Parliament. The consultation on this issue suggests a very broad brush approach in some areas, and particularly in the transport sector, where it will apply to all bus services even though they are largely provided by competing private sector employers in the same city.

The political rationale is that these key services must be better protected because of their importance to the wider economy and public safety. What they also have in common is the fact that they are highly unionised and the are sectors in which most industrial action actually takes place. A cynic might suggest that rather than sectoral definitions, the actual names of the unions could be used, such as RMT, NASUWT, NUT, Unite and Unison, as it would make the government’s intention clearer.

It is wholly unclear whether employers that provide a service which would otherwise be provided by a public body in one of the designated sectors, such as a care home providing services on behalf of a local authority, or providing services that are ancillary to those services, are covered by the Bill or not. If faced with action, it is possible that neither the employer nor the union will know whether some or all parts of the workforce have to meet both turnout and approval thresholds.

This issue is more than a hypothetical problem and forms part of the consultation. One solution consulted on is a test of whether the majority of the workforce at an employer is one side of the public service line or not.

At this point, it seems likely that we will see the sort of litigation brought throughout the 1980s and beyond challenging the ballot process; the desire to make the process more demanding will, in the short term, lead to more litigation.

Striking employees have a right to picket at or near their place of work in limited numbers. The Bill proposes greater obligations on the unions with the need to appoint an official or member as a supervisor and to provide confirmation in writing for inspection by the police or anyone who reasonably asks to see it.

The supervisor must be familiar with the Code of Practice on Picketing, tell the police where the picket will be, who the supervisor is and how to contact him. The supervisor must be present when the picketing takes place, contactable, and able to attend at short notice. He must also wear a badge or armband that identifies him.

This is about imposing responsibility on a named individual. What it does not do, yet, is impose specific obligations on that person to procure the proper conduct of those on the picket line.

The government, in establishing higher thresholds for protected action, wants to make taking industrial action harder for unions generally and especially for those in the public sector. But what other consequences might arise? At present it seems likely that: