header-logo header-logo

The unions strike back

10 March 2011
Issue: 7456 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Landmark decision allows unions the right to strike

The Court of Appeal has ruled in favour of unions Aslef and RMT in a landmark employment case over procedural blocks to strikes.

The unions appealed after the High Court granted interim injunctions stopping a planned strike by Serco and Docklands Light Railway staff because of procedural irregularities in the balloting process.

Delivering its judgment in National Union of RMT v Serco [2011] EWCA Civ 226 last week, the court held that, where Aslef accidentally extended the vote to two non-entitled members, the small accidental failures provisions of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 should have applied.

It held that Aslef’s explanation on the ballot and strike notices “although brief, was sufficient to satisfy the statute and the [High Court] judge misdirected himself as to the specificity required”. It found that RMT’s explanation was adequate and that its notification to the employer complied with the statutory obligation.

Victoria Phillips, head of employment at Thompsons solicitors, says: “This is an important decision which goes against the trend where the ability of trade unions to take collective action has been ruled out by the courts due to small mistakes in the balloting process, therefore undermining the fundamental human rights of trade unions and their members.”

Rob McCreath, partner at Archon Solicitors, says Lord Justice Elias has taken a “notably pragmatic approach to unions’ obligations when balloting for industrial action and notifying employers.

“The main lesson for employers is to think very carefully before applying for injunctions to prevent strikes on the basis of relatively minor mistakes by the unions. The costs for the two employers involved in these cases will have been very substantial indeed and they will also have to meet the unions’ costs—unless, of course, there is a successful appeal.”
 

Issue: 7456 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll