British Railways Board v National Union of Railwaymen: CA 1989

The court discussed section 11(2) of the 1984 Act: ‘Simplifying that a little bit and reading it with section 11(1), which defines who is qualified and entitled to vote, section 11(2) is saying ‘If you do not allow somebody to vote, if you say ‘You are not entitled to vote,’ then you cannot call him out on strike. He has not had an opportunity to express his view, and, if you do call him out on strike, then the whole ballot fails and the strike or other industrial action cannot be justified.’ Nobody has suggested that anybody entitled to vote has been disqualified from voting. What Mr Carr says is that if they were not given an opportunity of voting they were denied their entitlement to vote. I disagree. There is a profound difference, as I think, between denying someone’s entitlement to vote and inadvertently failing to give him an opportunity to vote’.

Judges:

Lord Donaldson of Lymington MR

Citations:

[1989] ICR 678

Statutes:

Trade Union Act 1984 11(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedIn re P (a minor by his mother and litigation friend); P v National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers HL 27-Feb-2003
The pupil had been excluded from school but then ordered to be re-instated. The teachers, through their union, refused to teach him claiming that he was disruptive. The claimant appealed a refusal of an injunction. The injunction had been refused on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.223725