header-logo header-logo

What protection for strikers?

31 May 2024 / Charles Pigott
Issue: 8073 / Categories: Features , Employment , Tribunals
printer mail-detail
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 preclude

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

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Appointment of former Solicitor General bolsters corporate investigations and white collar practice

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Firm strengthens international strategy with hire of global relations consultant

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Partner and associate join employment practice

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