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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll