5. Union and collective organisation

Union and collective organisation rights are principally governed by the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRCA), which was amended by the Employment Relations Act 1999 (ERA 99) and the Employment Relations Act 2004 (ERA 04). In Northern Ireland these rights are found in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (TULRO), as amended.

These lay down the status of a union and its duties in respect of keeping accounts, submitting returns and the conduct of elections, as well as setting out rights of trade unions and members.

It is unlawful for unions to enforce 100% union organisation (a closed shop). Section 222 of TULRCA states that all industrial action to enforce 100% union membership agreements or to cause an employer to discriminate against a non-member is unlawful, leaving the union at risk of legal penalties. In addition, any dismissal of a non-union member to enforce 100% membership is automatically unfair.

It is unlawful under section 145A of TULRCA for an employer to offer a worker an inducement not to join a union or take part in union activities, or to join a union or any particular union(s).

It is also unlawful (section 145B of TULRCA) for an employer to offer a worker an inducement to stop, or prevent, their terms and conditions being negotiated by a union through a collective agreement (collective bargaining). In 2006, supermarket chain Asda was ordered to pay £850,000 for offering inducements to 340 members of the GMB general union to give up their collective bargaining rights. The workers at its distribution depot in Washington, Tyne and Wear, were offered a 10% pay rise in order to end collective bargaining at the site.

The amount of the award payable to a worker by an employer who has offered an inducement is £3,500 (2012-13).

The right to recognition

To gain access to many of the rights covered in this chapter the union must be recognised by the employer. TULRCA provides a mechanism through which unions can gain statutory recognition, even where the employer is implacably opposed to it. However, the law does not apply to small employers - that is those with 20 or fewer workers. The legislation extends to workers and not just employees. However, those who work freelance may be excluded from the calculation of the number of workers (R v CAC [2003] IRLR 460).

To apply for recognition under the statutory procedure, a union has to submit a request in writing to the employer. If it is unable to negotiate a recognition agreement, it makes a formal application in writing to the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC).

When making a formal application, the union has to identify the bargaining unit for which it is seeking recognition. This is the group of workers it wants to represent. It is important to choose the bargaining unit carefully, as the outcome of any eventual ballot can hang on who is, or is not, included in the unit. The law says that the CAC must examine whether a bargaining unit is "compatible with effective management".

The courts have interpreted this to mean that the union's bargaining unit will usually only be successfully challenged where the employer can show that it is not compatible with management. It does not have to be the most effective unit of organisation, as long as it is not an ineffective one. If the employer successfully challenges the union's preferred bargaining unit, the CAC can impose a different one. At this stage the union may choose to withdraw the application.

The Employment Relations Act 2004 (ERA 04) obliges employers to provide the union and the CAC with an up-to-date list of workers in the bargaining unit. It also imposes a legal obligation on a union to provide the CAC with information about its membership. The Act also allows the CAC to intervene if the employer engages in "unfair practices" (section 10, ERA 04) to influence the result of a recognition ballot.

The procedure

The CAC has to first accept the application as valid. It will do this only if the union demonstrates that it already has at least 10% of the bargaining unit in membership and that a majority of the workers in the unit would be likely to favour recognition. The union has to produce evidence in support of these two requirements. This will usually consist of its own membership records and any letters, petitions and other evidence from the workforce showing that there is likely to be majority support for recognition. This information remains confidential - the employer is not given copies of any documents relating to workers' intentions regarding recognition or whether individuals are union members.

Normally only one union can apply for recognition for the bargaining unit at a time. Where more than one union wishes to gain recognition for the same group, they must apply together and show that they are capable of co-operation. If they cannot do this, both applications are invalid. A union cannot apply for statutory recognition where there is already a recognised union, even if the recognised union does not have the support of the majority of the workforce in the bargaining unit. An employer can even decide to recognise another union at any time until the CAC accepts the application as valid, which would block the first union from making a statutory claim.

However, the body with which the employer comes to a deal must be an independent union. Entertainment union BECTU challenged cinema group City Screen when it signed an agreement with a body whose membership consisted solely of four managers and which had no source of funds other than that provided by the company. The CAC held that this was not a union and therefore did not bar the BECTU claim for recognition (BECTU v City Screen TUR1/309/2003).

The aim of these restrictions is to avoid competition between unions for the same group of workers. It is not necessary for the recognition agreement to include a requirement to negotiate on pay, hours and holidays even though these are referred to in the legislation. In the case of T&G v Asda TUR1/368 [2004] ([2004] IRLR 836), the CAC held that a "partnership agreement" which did not include pay bargaining was nevertheless a recognition agreement and thus barred another union from making a statutory claim for recognition.

However, it means that there will be situations where a union has the majority of members but cannot gain recognition because the employer has reached a voluntary recognition agreement with another union, which could include non-TUC unions, even if this is not what most of the workers want. This occurred in the case of NUJ v CAC [2004] EWHC 2612 ([2005] IRLR 28):

If the union has recruited more than half the workers in the bargaining unit, the CAC may be able to award recognition without the need for a ballot. Only a minority of unions have achieved statutory recognition this way. Generally, the claim goes through a series of procedures and is most likely to be concluded by means of a secret ballot of workers.

The ballot can either be held by post sent to the individual's nominated address, or at the workplace, or a combination of the two. It is up to the CAC to decide. Regardless of the employer's attitude to the union, they have a legal duty to co-operate generally with the union and with the person appointed to conduct the ballot and to provide the CAC with a list of workers' names and addresses. The CAC can order a ballot to be re-run if not all the workers entitled to vote had been given that opportunity (R (on the application of Ultraframe (UK)) v CAC [2005] EWCA Civ 560 ([2005] IRLR 641)).

Unions must be given reasonable access to the workforce. The Department of Trade and Industry (now BIS) introduced a Code of Practice on recognition and derecognition which came into effect on 1 October 2005, Access and unfair practices during recognition and derecognition ballots. This replaces the 2000 Code and can be found on the BIS website at: www.bis.gov.uk/files/file14418.pdf

The Code gives advice to employers and unions on what arrangements should be made so that the union gets the opportunity to put its case to workers in the bargaining unit. It suggests a mass meeting lasting at least 30 minutes every 10 days of the access period and, where appropriate, for "surgeries" to be held during working hours where workers can meet with the union individually or in small groups.

The union should be allowed to display material in a prominent place and, where appropriate, workers should have access to information on the internet and by email. The Code also explains the unfair practices that are prohibited during the balloting process, which include offers of money, threats or coercion intending to influence the outcome of the ballot. In addition it contains a guide to fair campaigning.

The Employment Relations Act 2004 (ERA 04) introduced postal voting rights to workers who are absent from work on the date of the recognition ballot.

Whatever the methods agreed, the union should have the same access to the workforce as the employer. If the employer puts out a circular with arguments against recognition, the union should be allowed to circulate its arguments in favour.

To win a recognition ballot it is not enough simply to get a majority of the votes cast (50% plus one). At least 40% of the entire bargaining unit must also vote in favour of recognition. In effect, abstentions count as votes against the union.

If the ballot goes in the union's favour, or if the CAC declares that there should be recognition without a ballot because the union already has more than 50% of the workforce in membership, the employer and union have to try to negotiate a collective bargaining procedure. With a statutory recognition award the union is limited to an agreement to negotiate over pay, hours and holidays. "Pay" had been defined widely by the CAC to include pension rights but the ERA 04 reverses this position, making it clear that pensions are excluded from the definition of pay.

If employers and unions cannot reach an agreement on procedures, the CAC will impose one. This will normally involve setting up a joint negotiating body and a six-stage bargaining procedure, with each stage having a specified timetable.

Although the law on recognition appears extremely complicated, unions have had significant successes since its introduction. It has led to both statutory awards for recognition and to a significant increase in voluntary recognition, as employers realise that they could secure a more acceptable agreement through co-operation.

The legislation also sets out the circumstances where the employer or workers can apply to the CAC to have a union with statutory recognition derecognised. In general, these provisions are not operative unless statutory recognition was granted more than three years earlier. However, in one of the first cases on the issue, the CAC issued a derecognition award at the employer's request because evidence was offered to show that the bargaining unit was no longer in existence.

Protection of union members

Under section 137 of TULRCA, there is a statutory right not to be refused work on the grounds of membership or non-membership of a union or because of a refusal to leave or join a union. The EAT has held that a refusal to hire a known trade union activist, because he was believed to be "uncooperative and anti-management", came within the definition of discriminatory action on the grounds of union membership (Harrison v Kent CC [1995] ICR 434).

It may be difficult to prove an allegation of refusal to hire because of an individual's trade union membership. If a prospective employer is known to systematically exclude trade union members; refuses to process an application or makes the claimant withdraw; refuses employment or makes a spurious offer of employment; and the grounds are believed to be because the individual is (or is not) a trade union member, that person can complain to a tribunal. Complaints can also be made over advertisements or against employment agencies that seek similarly to exclude claimants (section 138, TULRCA). Compensation can include a sum for injury to feelings.

Anti-union blacklists

Since 2 March 2010 anti-union blacklists have been outlawed under the Employment Relations Act 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010. The regulations prohibit the compiling, supplying, selling or using of lists of trade union activists and members, with the purpose of discriminating against those individuals. (There are some limited exceptions, for example, where the list is in the hands of a whistleblower or journalist.)

The regulations also make it unlawful for employers to make decisions about recruiting or dismissing anyone on the basis of an anti-union list, and unlawful for agencies to decline to assist someone because they are on such a list. Anyone who finds that they are on a blacklist (as well as the relevant unions) will have the right to bring a claim. Also, even if some of the individuals were not union activists or members (e.g. were on the list simply because they were viewed as troublesome by the employer) they too will have a claim.

In September 2010, construction contractor CB&I was found guilty of blacklisting Unite member Phil Willis, 61, who was awarded £18,375 in damages, including £2,000 in "aggravated damages" because CB&I made use of the blacklisting service provided by The Consulting Association. Mr Willis submitted an application to CB&I for work as a steel erector on the Isle of Grain project in 2007. Although his application was acknowledged, he was not contacted again.

According to TUC reports, in 2011 another tribunal found Balfour Beatty Engineering Services Ltd guilty of refusing site worker Paul Tattersfield employment because he was also on The Consulting Association blacklist. The tribunal awarded him just under £24,000 for loss of earnings, injury to feelings and aggravated damages.

However, agency workers may well not be able to claim compensation. Despite a tribunal finding that he had been blacklisted, engineer Dave Smith received no compensation because he was employed through an employment agency (i.e. had no direct employment relationship with the company that had blacklisted him).

As usual, the complaint must normally be lodged at a tribunal within three months of the date of the relevant incident. Fortunately, a reverse burden of proof operates - for example, it will be for the employer to show that there was a lawful reason for the individual's treatment, where an individual can show that he was on a blacklist, and despite being qualified for a post had his application turned down.

Damages will reflect both the individual's loss of earnings and injury to feelings - the tribunal award being not less than £5,000 (other than in Scotland). However, the award is subject to reductions for contributory fault (e.g. if the individual was on the list because of violent conduct).

In addition to ordering the employer to pay compensation, tribunals can recommend that employers take steps to remedy the situation. Furthermore, it is possible to apply for an injunction to prevent a blacklist being used, or to seek an order that a blacklist be destroyed. Finally, complaints involving blacklists should also be directed to the Information Commissioner, who will have the power to investigate and issue a fine.

European Convention on Human Rights

The European Convention on Human Rights (through the Human Rights Act 1998) (see Civil liberties and employment law in the Introduction) guarantees the right to peaceful assembly and freedom of association. Unions may be able to pursue a claim under the Act where there have been attempts by an employer to restrict their freedom to associate (see for example the case of ASLEF v UK which confirmed unions' right to exclude BNP members).

For a detailed review of the latest case law brought by unions before the European Court of Human Rights, see Days of Action: the legality of protest strikes against government cuts, Ewing and Hendy (2011, Institute of Employment Rights).

Victimisation

Individual members of unions have protection against victimisation from their employer. They have the right not to have action short of dismissal (for example, suspension) taken against them, together with the right not to be dismissed because of membership of a trade union (see Chapter 10: Automatically unfair dismissals) and the right not to be selected for redundancy for that reason (see Chapter 11: Selection for redundancy).

In an important ruling in 1991, the Court of Appeal said that dismissal because an employee had been an active union member in a previous job was unfair and fell within the protection afforded by section 152 of TULRCA (Fitzpatrick v British Railways Board [1991] IRLR 376). The key issue is why the employer dismissed the employee.

In the case of MANCAT v Smith & others UKEAT/0460/06, evidence of the college principal's hostility to the claimants allowed a tribunal to conclude that he was motivated by animosity towards them because of their trade union activities.

Section 146 of TULRCA protects trade unionists from action short of dismissal by employers where this involves either preventing or deterring them from joining or taking part in union activities. If an employer decides to no longer recognise a shop steward who has been accredited by the union, this amounts to action short of dismissal for the purpose of deterring the individual from taking part in union activities (Farnsworth v McCoid ([1999] IRLR 626)).

An employee carrying out his/her trade union duties at an appropriate time, who is disciplined on account of those activities, is unlawfully victimised (LB Islington v Hutchings EAT/34/01).

However, according to the Court of Appeal in the case of Gallacher v Department of Transport [1994] IRLR 231, an employer's refusal to promote someone on the grounds that their trade union duties had prevented the individual from acquiring relevant experience does not fall within the protection.

The Court of Appeal held that withholding a pay rise from an employee until such time as she agreed to give up her union duties amounted to unlawful victimisation. The employers argued that they had not taken action against her, but that they had merely "omitted" to take action in her favour, but the Court rejected this explanation (LB Southwark v Whillier [2001] ICR 1016).

Victimisation claims must go to the tribunal within three months of the date when the action complained of occurred, and if the claim is upheld the tribunal will order the employer to pay compensation that is "just and equitable". There is no length of service requirement to pursue the claim. If the victimisation results in a dismissal, a minimum of £5,300 (2012-13) basic compensation will be awarded. In addition the tribunal can make a compensatory award of up to £72,300 (2012-13), which could include damages for injury to feelings. The EAT, in the case of LB Hackney v Adams EAT/1318/01 ([2003] IRLR 402), held that damages for injury to feelings are as relevant in trade union cases as in any other field of discrimination law.

If an employee is dismissed on grounds of their union activities they are entitled to claim interim relief at an employment tribunal. Interim relief is a remedy available in cases of unfair dismissal that are automatically unfair on grounds of trade union activities or certain health and safety activities. The application must be supported by the union in the form of a written certificate. A tribunal can make an order for interim relief if it considers that the employee is likely to succeed in their unfair dismissal claim. The effect of the order is to continue the contract of employment until the full claim has been heard, which means the employee will continue to be paid by the employer. The employee and union must act quickly - a claim for interim relief must be brought within seven days of the effective date of termination.

Disciplinary action against union representatives should not be dealt with under the organisation's normal disciplinary procedure but should be covered by a special procedure. Acas advises that: "Disciplinary action against a trade union official can lead to a serious dispute if it is seen as an attack on the union's functions". For this reason, while normal disciplinary standards should apply, no action beyond an oral warning should be taken until the case is discussed with a senior trade union representative or full-time official.

Right to time off

Union lay officials, including shop stewards, staff reps and branch secretaries of recognised unions, have the right to time off with pay (based on average hourly earnings) to carry out trade union duties (section 168, TULRCA).

If an employer refuses a right to time off in circumstances where it would have been reasonable to provide the right, the union representative can take a claim to an employment tribunal. The tribunal can award financial compensation, even in cases where the representative has not incurred any financial loss (Skiggs v SW Trains EAT/0763/03 ([2005] IRLR 459)).

Trade union duties are those concerned with negotiation with the employer over what are termed section 178(2) matters (terms and conditions, recruitment, suspension, dismissal, work allocation, discipline, union membership, time off facilities and procedures). Alternatively, with the employer's agreement, they can be for functions related to these matters but which are not within the scope of negotiations. To benefit from the time-off rights, the union must be recognised by the employer for the section 178(2) matter for which the time off is required.

Trade union officers have the right to time off for training, again if related to section 178(2) matters. This right is qualified by the words "reasonable in all the circumstances". The Acas Code of Practice on Time off for trade union duties and activities (updated in January 2010 and available at: www.acas.org.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=274&p=0, gives as examples of "reasonableness", the employer's need for safety and security at all times, the size of the organisation, the production process and the need to maintain a service to the public. There is no service qualification for this right.

Employee representatives appointed or elected for consultation on redundancy and business transfers similarly have the right to time off for training in their duties (see Chapters 11 and 12) . An employer who persistently refuses time off, arguing that there are staff shortages, is likely to be in breach of the law where no efforts are made to overcome the shortages.

The EAT has held that time off is not rigidly limited to the section 178(2) matters since an employer acting reasonably has to take account of factors such as the history, timing and agenda of the meeting in question (London Ambulance Service v Charlton [1992] IRLR 510).

Trade union representatives on the management committees of their company pension schemes have the right to paid time off for training on pensions, even where the pension scheme itself is not negotiable, according to the EAT.

Part-time workers should be paid for the same number of hours as a full-time employee when attending union training. A ruling of the European Court in the case of Arbeiterwohlfahrt der Stadt Berlin v Botel Case C-360/90 ([1992] IRLR 423) held that an employee whose working day is shorter than that of other employees, but who takes part in a course with hours in excess of the employee's contractual hours, should be paid for the hours on the course at the same level as the full-time workers. This interpretation was also adopted by the ECJ in the case of Kuratorium v Lewark C457/93 ([1996] IRLR 637.

All members of recognised unions, not just representatives, have the right to reasonable time off without pay to take part in trade union activities, except for industrial action (section 170, TULRCA). These would include shiftworkers attending trades council and union branch meetings. Circumstances where the time off rights have been held to apply to workplace union representatives include attendance at trade union meetings and at a conference dealing with new laws on working conditions. However, the EAT ruled, in the case of Luce v LB Bexley [1990] IRLR 422, that there is no right to time off to attend a lobby of Parliament to protest over legislation not significantly specific to the workers concerned.

An employee can bring a claim relating to time off to a tribunal, but only if a specific request for time off has been denied (Ryford v Drinkwater [1996] IRLR 16). The claim must be presented to a tribunal within three months (section 171, TULRCA). If the claim is successful, the tribunal will make a declaration of the employee's rights and may award "just and equitable" compensation.

Employee representatives in workplaces with no recognised union who are elected for consultation on redundancy and business transfers have rights to time off with pay for their duties (see Chapters 11 and 12).

Union learning representatives also have the right to a reasonable amount of paid time off to carry out their duties. These would include addressing learning or training needs, providing information and advice and promoting the value of learning. They also have the right to time off for training to understand the different methods for identifying learning needs, drawing up learning plans and working with employers to promote the value of learning.

Rights to information

Section 181 of TULRCA says that, for the purpose of collective bargaining, employers have a duty to disclose, to representatives of independent recognised unions, information:

• without which representatives would be impeded in carrying out collective bargaining; or

• which, in accordance with good industrial relations practice, should be disclosed.

This can include an order to an employer to give the union information on the distribution of percentage pay awards across certain staff groups and information about the amount and distribution of overtime.

In addition, the Acas Code of Practice, Disclosure of information to trade unions for collective bargaining purposes, states that information that should be disclosed includes:

• pay and benefits - structure of the payment system, earnings analysed by work group, details of fringe benefits;

• employee numbers - numbers employed by age and sex, turnover, absenteeism;

• performance - productivity and efficiency data, sales; and

• financial - profit, assets, liabilities, loans, sales.

The right to disclosure is restricted on limited grounds by section 182 of TULRCA. This states that an employer can decline to give the information on the grounds: of national security; that the information has been obtained in confidence; that it relates specifically to an individual; or that it would cause "substantial injury" to the employer's undertaking.

The Acas Code of Practice gives examples of information that could lead to "substantial injury", which includes cost information on individual products and marketing and pricing details.

Complaints over an employer's failure to disclose must be presented in writing to the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC), which will attempt first to mediate to resolve the matter. Failing this it may, if it finds the claim justified, make a ruling (section 183, TULRCA). Claims under section 183 are presented by the union, not by individuals.

Employee reps and European Works Councils

In companies with operations in two or more European Union states employing more than 1,000 employees in total (minimum 150 employees in at least two member states), a European Works Council (EWC) must, if requested, be established. The Works Council, once its terms have been successfully negotiated, is designed to provide a forum for informing and consulting employees.

EWC members need not be trade union representatives, although in practice in most large workplaces where there are recognised unions they will nominate candidates for election. The rules for establishing an EWC are set out in the Transnational Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 1999 and the Transnational Information and Consultation of Employees (Amendment) Regulations 2010.

Companies have to supply information about their structures and organisation where requested. The ECJ, in the case of Betriebsrat v Bofrost C-62/99 ([2001] IRLR 403), held that this is a legal requirement even if it has not, at that stage, been possible to establish whether the company itself is the controlling undertaking.

The Court held that information on company structure is essential to the opening of negotiations on the establishment of an EWC. Where the company headquarters are located outside the EU, the largest employer based in an EU state in the group has to assume responsibility for the provision of information to assist the establishment of the EWC (Gesamtbetriebsrat der Kuhne & Nagel v Kuhne & Nagel C-440/00 ([2004] IRLR 332)).

Where the central management is based in an EU state, a company must supply other undertakings in the same group with information needed for the establishment of an EWC (Betriebsrat der Firma ADS Anker Gmbj v ADS Anker GmbH C-349/01).

An EU Directive obliges employers to consult employee representatives at national level. The Employment Relations Act 2004 transposes these requirements into UK law. Under the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004, which came into effect on 6 April 2005, UK employers have to establish consultation bodies for the information and consultation of employees (known as ICE) if 10% of the workforce requests it.

Once in place the terms of reference of the ICE body can only be changed if 40% of the workforce votes in favour.

The ICE is the body through which the employer should consult with reps on the situation, structure and probable development of employment and future job plans.

Initially, the law only applied in firms where there are 150 or more employees. In March 2007 it was extended to workplaces with 100 to 150 workers and from April 2008 included those with 50 to 100 workers. Part-time workers are counted, although those working fewer than 75 hours per month can each be counted as half an employee if the employer so wishes. The legislation additionally excludes casual and agency staff from the calculation of the number of employees.

In a successful claim brought by general union Amicus (now part of the Unite union), publishing firm Macmillan became the first employer fined for a breach of its duty to consult under the ICE regulations. Noting that the company's responses to the Central Arbitration Committee (which has responsibility for decisions under ICE) were "vague" and "fudged", the EAT fined Macmillan £55,000 (Amicus v Macmillan Publishers Ltd UKEAT/0185/07).

Internal union matters

A number of internal union procedures are also regulated by legislation. The main areas covered by the law are bars on membership, internal union elections, ballots on political funds and discipline of members.

Union members also have rights as defined by the union's rule book. These can lay down the circumstances under which a member can expect support or representation from the union. The rulebook defines the contractual relationship between the member and the union.

Under section 174 of TULRCA a union can exclude or expel someone from union membership if s/he does not meet the membership requirements or because of their conduct. In 2004, this was amended to specify that "conduct" can include activities carried out as a member of a political party, but not membership of a political party itself. This meant that unions were unable to expel members who were in far-right political parties such as the BNP even though their values were completely opposed to those of the union.

However, in February 2007 unions won the right to expel members of the BNP at the European Court of Human Rights. In the following case the Court held that the right to freedom of assembly and association under the European Convention on Human Rights entitles unions to refuse membership to individuals whose political views are fundamentally opposed to their own.

As a result of this case, section 174 was amended (by the Employment Act 2008) to allow unions to expel members of far right organisations such as the BNP. Sections 24-61 of TULRCA lay down the procedures to be adopted by unions in relation to:

• maintaining a register of members' names and addresses;

• submitting annual returns; and

• conducting union elections.

When conducting elections, unions must ensure that:

• all members of a union's national executive body, including its president and general secretary, are elected at least every five years (section 46);

• elections are by secret postal ballot (section 1);

• elections are supervised by independent scrutineers who are responsible for inspecting the membership register and producing a report on the election (section 49);

• an "independent person" undertakes the administration of the vote (this person may also serve as scrutineer); and

• members are told who the scrutineers are to be and their names must be included on the ballot paper (section 51).

Section 65 says that a union may not "unjustifiably discipline" a member and defines this as where the reason for the discipline is that the member:

• fails to participate in or support industrial action;

• seeks to take legal action against the union;

• fails to agree to check-off arrangements; or

• works with non-union members or non-union employers.

Political fund ballots must be conducted every 10 years and are subject to the same general rules. There is a right of complaint to the Certification Officer or the courts if any member believes the ballot has not been conducted according to the rules. The government-appointed Certification Officer has prime responsibility for checking the finances and independence of unions and for assisting individuals with complaints against their unions.

A complaint has to be submitted to the tribunal within three months of the action complained of.