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
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll