The union served a notice of a pre-strike ballot on the council regarding a proposed privatisation and contracting out of services. The council alleged that this was not a trade dispute but one regarding public policy. The judge’s support for this was not justified by the evidence before him, and his decision was so defective as to allow the Court of Appeal itself to re-assess the evidence. The dispute clearly related to the terms and conditions of employment, since the proposals would have significant implications for staff. The notice identified those to be balloted by reference to the employer making deductions from their pay for their union membership.
Buxton LJ said of a suggestion by the employer that the Act required the union to provide details of the categories within which the employees fell: ‘ It is wholly artificial in those circumstances to say that the union should have given details of job descriptions and status of employees of the sort to which my Lord referred. It is much more reliable from an employer’s point of view if, having been given the names, he himself, with his superior knowledge of the way in which his operation works, decides into what categories and into what sections those persons fall. When that point was put to Mr Bear in argument he was constrained to agree that that was indeed as a matter of common sense, but that approach, he said, was prevented by the wording of the statute. We should look with great caution at such an argument about a statute such as this, which is a statute directed to industrial relations, designed to enable workers and employers to conduct their affairs in a sensible and efficient way. . But if I am wrong about that, the fact that the notice in this case provided, by a reference easily available to the employer, an actual nominal roll more than amply fulfilled any obligation placed upon the union by this statute. I would not want to be thought to be laying down any rule that goes outside the facts of this case, save to say that the obligations of the union must be assessed in the circumstances of the particular strike and in a commonsense way in the light of the policy of the legislation. In this case that objective was achieved and I would therefore allow the appeal on that ground also.’
Judges:
Pill LJ, Buxton LJ
Citations:
Times 03-Apr-2001, Gazette 17-May-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 443, [2001] IRLR 524
Links:
Statutes:
Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 219 244
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Local Government
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.90064
