The Union had taken a vote of its cabin crew members as to a strike. The airline sought an interim injunction to prevent the strike, saying that the Union had not met the requirements of the Act as to proper notification of the results.
Held: An inducement to break an employment contract by striking is unlawful at common law, but is not unlawful if it is done in contemplation of a trade dispute (section 219) It is for the Union to bring itself within that protection by compliance with the Act. The Union here had done less to notify its members than had applied in the Network Rail case.
Section 221 gives a greater relevance to the likelihood of success at trial in these cases than in other types of applications for interlocutory injunctions, where the court looks to ‘the balance of convenience’, and the adequacy or otherwise of the remedies in damages available to either side if, on the one hand, wrongly injuncted or if on the other hand, wrongfully refused an injunction. The section requires the court to have regard particularly to the likelihood of success at trial of the person relying upon section 219.
The arguments as to whether the statute had been complied with gave rise to properly arguable issues for trial, and ‘I am inclined to think that the union may well have failed to put in place an adequately analysed system calculated to ensure that all reasonable steps were taken to communicate with relevant members as soon as reasonably practicable the relevant items of statutory information.’ The order was granted.
Judges:
McCombe J
Citations:
[2010] EWHC B4 (QB), [2010] EWHC 1196 (QB), [2010] EWHC 1210 (QB)
Links:
Statutes:
Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 221(2) 231
Citing:
Cited – Metrobus Ltd v Unite the Union CA 31-Jul-2009
The union sought leave to appeal against an interim injunction restraining it from calling a strike. It now called in aid also its members’ Article 11 Human Rights. The company had questioned whether the ballot met the requirements of the 1992 Act. . .
Cited – Network Rail Infrastructure Limited v The National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers QBD 2010
The company complained that the defendant union had failed when arranging its strike ballot to comply with the 1992 Act. Sharp J said: ‘It is said on behalf of Network Rail that this cannot be sufficient for the purposes of section 231 giving the . .
See Also – British Airways Plc v Unite The Union QBD 17-Dec-2009
. .
Cited by:
Appeal from – British Airways v Unite The Union CA 20-May-2010
The Union appealed against an interim injunction disallowing it from relying on a strike ballot. The Judge had said that it had failed to comply with section 231 in that in announcing the results of the ballot, the union had not taken active steps . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 18 August 2022; Ref: scu.415949
