header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
31 May 2024 / Charles Pigott
Issue: 8073 / Categories: Features , Employment , Tribunals
printer mail-detail

What protection for strikers?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
175052
Where does the Supreme Court’s decision in Mercer leave us in terms of the law on union-related detriment? Charles Pigott reports
  • The Supreme Court has declared trade union detriment legislation incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
  • It has departed from the Court of Appeal in granting what is believed to be the first ever declaration of incompatibility in the field of employment law.

Secretary of State for Business and Trade v Mercer [2024] UKSC 12, [2024] All ER (D) 64 (Apr) represents the final stage in a dispute about the interpretation of s 146 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULR(C)A 1992).

Section 146 creates a right for workers not to be subjected to a detriment for, among other things, taking part in trade union activities ‘at an appropriate time’. Appropriate time is defined as outside working hours, unless the employer agrees to the relevant activities taking place inside working hours (s 146(2)).

All parties agreed that a literal interpretation of this provision would

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Firm welcomes partner with specialist expertise in family and art law

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar

Dual-qualified partner joins international private client team

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Driving test fraudsters steer towards jail
Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
NLJ this week: Deepfakes demand data law muscle
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
NLJ this week: 40% penalty for coercive control
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
NLJ this week: Mbappé row spotlights ‘ethics bonuses’
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law
NLJ this week: CPR tweak closes third-party disclosure gap
A seemingly dry procedural update may prove potent. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold explains that new CPR 31.12A—part of the 193rd update—fills a ‘lacuna’ exposed in McLaren Indy v Alpa Racing
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll