Sir Hugh Griffiths said: ‘It appears to this Court that the manifest overall purpose of Section 26 is to give a measure of protection to an employer if his business is faced with ruin by a strike. It enables him in those circumstances, if he cannot carry on the business without a labour force, to dismiss the labour force on strike; to take on another labour force without the stigma of its being an unfair dismissal. That being the overall purpose it would appear to be manifestly wrong, when an employer has beer told that strike action has been called off, that he should nevertheless still be free to dismiss those who took part in the strike, without any risk of a finding that he was acting unfairly. This is a result which the members of this Court would be anxious to avoid, unless the language of the Section drove them to it.’
Judges:
Sir Hugh Griffiths
Citations:
[1973] LCR 407
Statutes:
Industrial Relations Act 1971 26
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Thompson and others v Eaton Ltd EAT 14-Apr-1976
The management introduced a new machine. The appellants left the premises and did not return. They were dismissed. They now appealed a finding that they had not been unfairly dismissed.
Held: The appeal failed. Whether the employer had through . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.272858