This was an application for interim injunctions to restrain the defendant trade union from calling upon its members to take part in industrial action, in protest at the refusal of the claimant employer to pay them a bonus for working during the Olympic Games.
The Claimant argued the ballot and strike notices sent by Unite were imprecise and did not comply with the statutory requirements of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and, therefore, the union could not successfully invoke the immunity from legal action under s.219(1) in respect of the strike and that an injunction should be granted as damages would not be an adequate remedy. Under s.226A(2C), the notice must contain information to enable the employer to deduce the total number of employees concerned, the categories of employee to which they belonged and where they worked. The ballot notice stated that the union intended “to send ballot papers to all members who were drivers; engineering grades and supervisory grades 93 working on Transport for London contracts either on a full-time or part-time basis” employed at identified locations.
The High Court considered that the phrase "working on Transport for London contracts either on a full-time or part-time basis" was imprecise. It was not clear that it included employees who "might be expected" to work on such contracts or those who were "associated with" the contracts or those working on the contracts whether "directly" or "indirectly". The employer was entitled to know which part or parts of its workforce were being invited to take industrial action so that it could best prepare for such action if it took and could not deduce this from the information supplied in the ballot notices. The Court was required on an application for an interim injunction, to have regard to the likelihood of the statutory immunity being established at trial.
In this case it was unlikely that the union would be able to establish that it had complied with the statutory requirements and having regard to the serious inconvenience that would be caused to the public the Court the application should be granted.
Continue reading
We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.
Please log in to view the full article.
What you'll get:
- Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
- Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
- 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
- Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team
Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial
