\n
Lawyers say they expect the UK government’s planned laws on enforcing minimum service levels during strikes to be hampered by legal challenges.<\/b><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
Unions could be sued if basic services are not provided in key sectors under the proposed anti-strike laws.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
Some unions have threatened legal action and say they believe the strike restrictions would be unlawful.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
Labour says it would repeal such laws, calling them a “legislative weapon” used for political reasons.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
The law was announced on Thursday after weeks of industrial strife, with key public services paralysed by large-scale strikes.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has defended the new law as an “entirely reasonable” way to balance the freedom to strike with “the right of ordinary working people to go about their lives free from significant disruption”.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
But employment lawyers have told the BBC the proposed law has raised serious legal questions and would be contested by unions in court.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n- Train drivers offered pay rise in bid to end strikes<\/li>\n
- Anti-strike law sets up battle over principles<\/li>\n
- Who could be banned from striking?<\/li>\n
- The strikes taking place in January<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
The government says the law would introduce “minimum safety levels” for fire, ambulance and rail services and would consult on what that means for these sectors.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
For other sectors, including health services, education and border security, the government would only consult on minimum safety levels if voluntary positions are not agreed.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
The government is yet to spell out what those minimum levels might be, or who defines them.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n