During the past few years, the industrial landscape of conflict in the UK has dramatically changed due to the economic conditions, changing labour patterns, and a more litigation-oriented management style. Among the most striking changes, one should mention changes towards short-duration, tactical strikes. The day-long, blanket strikes of days gone by are long gone, and unions are now more likely to prefer various one-day or even half-day strikes, which occur on the busiest part of the day. The 2022 rail strikes, for example, comprised twelve separate 24‑hour actions spread over several months, maximising disruption to passenger services while limiting income loss for participating workers (ONS 2023). This “drip‑feed” approach applies sustained pressure on employers and garners continuous media attention without the resource drain associated with extended strikes.
In parallel, “wildcat” and unofficial stoppages, spontaneous industrial actions organised rapidly via social media and messaging apps have become more prevalent, especially among younger workers less bound by traditional union protocols (Prasad, Mills & McFadyen 2023). Such actions often erupt around local grievances (e.g., shift cancellations or safety concerns) and evade the procedural requirements of formal ballots, making them harder for employers to anticipate or legally challenge.
On the sanctions front, employers increasingly resort to legal injunctions to block or curtail industrial action. Public‑sector bodies have sought court orders citing procedural failings such as insufficient strike‑ballot notice to delay or prohibit walkouts (Signoretti & Wilkinson 2025). This tactic shifts the battleground into the courtroom, potentially exposing unions and their leaders to hefty fines or personal liability if injunctions are breached (ACAS 2023). Moreover, under the Trade Union Act 2016, unions must achieve higher turnout thresholds in strike ballots for their actions to be protected; failure to meet these thresholds opens the door for employers to challenge strike legality and discipline participants.
Another emerging sanction is the pre‑emptive use of replacement labour. In critical public‑sector functions such as waste collection or transport, authorities now hold contingency staffing agreements with agencies to maintain essential services during strikes (Kingshott & Peccei 2024). While legally permissible, the deployment of agency workers can escalate tensions, as it is seen by unions as undermining collective bargaining power.
These evolving conflict forms and sanctions underscore the importance of proactive dispute‑avoidance strategies. In a merged public‑sector context, organisations should:
- Engage Early: Establish joint consultative forums and rapid‑response dialogue channels to address emerging grievances before they crystallise into industrial action.
- Enhance Transparency: Communicate openly about business constraints and involve employee representatives in planning change programmes, reducing the appeal of spontaneous walkouts.
- Leverage Acas Services: Use early‑conciliation and facilitation support to defuse tensions and co‑create mutually acceptable solutions.
