header-logo header-logo

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

The unions strike back

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

Birketts—Nathan Evans

Birketts—Nathan Evans

Commercial and technology team in Cambridgestrengthened by partner hire

Andrew & Andrew Solicitors—Shikha Datta

Andrew & Andrew Solicitors—Shikha Datta

Hampshire firm appoints head of new family department

Latham & Watkins—Sarah Lightdale

Latham & Watkins—Sarah Lightdale

Firm strengthens securities practice with partner return

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll