There is only a short window left to respond to the government’s consultation on a draft statutory Code of Practice on electronic and workplace balloting for certain union votes. While the government has already made the policy decision, the detail of the Code matters – its prescriptive requirements are likely to shape how ballots are run and challenged in practice, with implications for unions, employers and scrutineers alike.
Context and policy background
Current UK law requires trade unions to conduct most statutory ballots – be that industrial action, political fund resolutions or union elections – by post only. The proposed reforms would allow electronic and workplace balloting to sit alongside postal voting, bringing union ballots more in line with voting methods used elsewhere.
The draft Code does not revisit the merits of these reforms. Instead, it focuses on the operational, technical and security standards that will apply, reflecting long-standing concerns around secrecy, malpractice and confidence in ballot outcomes. The consultation seeks views on whether the guidance is sufficiently clear, complete and workable.
New balloting methods
The draft Code sets out three new permitted methods, which unions may use individually or in combination:
- Pure electronic balloting:Fully digital voting, from distribution to return, for most statutory ballots, including industrial action and union elections.
- Hybrid balloting: Postal distribution of voting materials with the option for members to return their vote electronically.
- Workplace balloting: In-person voting available only for industrial action ballots and only with the employer’s voluntary agreement.
In all cases, an independent scrutineer must have exclusive responsibility for ballot administration. Strict cybersecurity, audit and data-handling rules apply, including a requirement for scrutineers to hold Cyber Essentials Plus certification throughout the ballot period.
The “responsible person”
For each ballot, a designated “responsible person” (typically the union’s General Secretary) must select the appropriate voting method(s). The draft Code sets out both the factors that they should consider and the criteria they must apply in doing so.
Central to this assessment is whether the ballot will meet the statutory “required standards”, namely that it:
- complies with the legislation;
- allows those entitled to vote to do so;
- ensures votes are cast in secret; and
- minimises the risk of unfairness or malpractice.
The applicable factors and criteria differ for pure electronic, hybrid and workplace ballots. Decisions must be evidence-based and capable of justification if later scrutinised.
Electronic balloting: technical and security requirements
The draft Code sets out highly prescriptive requirements for the design and operation of electronic voting systems. Key requirements include:
- encryption of voting platforms, databases and data transmission;
- real-time monitoring and mandatory logging of IP addresses; and
- comprehensive audit logs retained for at least 12 months.
To support transparency, scrutineers must also provide voters with clear, plain-English descriptions of how the system operates.
Workplace balloting: practical operation
Workplace balloting will be available only for industrial action ballots and mirrors traditional in-person voting, subject to additional safeguards. These include:
- secure, tamper-evident ballot box under scrutineer control;
- voting locations out of sight of management and free from surveillance;
- advance agreement on operating hours, access arrangements and contingency planning; and
- offsite counting by the scrutineer.
For employers, the voluntary nature of workplace balloting means that internal protocols and operational readiness will be important if the union makes such a request.
What this means for employers
For employers, the most immediate implications arise from the proposed introduction of workplace balloting for industrial action, which would require employer agreement. Organisations may therefore wish to consider in advance how they would respond to a request to facilitate a workplace ballot, including issues around suitable locations, access arrangements, workforce communications and reputational risk.
More broadly, the prescriptive nature of the draft Code increases the scope for procedural challenges to ballots. Employers involved in industrial disputes may wish to scrutinise unions’ compliance with the Code closely, particularly around governance, decision-making by the “responsible person” and how electronic systems operate. Early identification of potential defects is likely to remain critical.
The consultation closes on 28 January, giving employers a limited opportunity to comment on whether the proposed standards are workable in practice, particularly where the draft Code envisages employer cooperation. Engagement at this stage may help shape the guidance to ensure it is practical and aligns with operational realities.
