header-logo header-logo

10 March 2011
Issue: 7456 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

The unions strike back

Landmark decision allows unions the right to strike

The Court of Appeal has ruled in favour of unions Aslef and RMT in a landmark employment case over procedural blocks to strikes.

The unions appealed after the High Court granted interim injunctions stopping a planned strike by Serco and Docklands Light Railway staff because of procedural irregularities in the balloting process.

Delivering its judgment in National Union of RMT v Serco [2011] EWCA Civ 226 last week, the court held that, where Aslef accidentally extended the vote to two non-entitled members, the small accidental failures provisions of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 should have applied.

It held that Aslef’s explanation on the ballot and strike notices “although brief, was sufficient to satisfy the statute and the [High Court] judge misdirected himself as to the specificity required”. It found that RMT’s explanation was adequate and that its notification to the employer complied with the statutory obligation.

Victoria Phillips, head of employment at Thompsons solicitors, says: “This is an important decision which goes against the trend where the ability of trade unions to take collective action has been ruled out by the courts due to small mistakes in the balloting process, therefore undermining the fundamental human rights of trade unions and their members.”

Rob McCreath, partner at Archon Solicitors, says Lord Justice Elias has taken a “notably pragmatic approach to unions’ obligations when balloting for industrial action and notifying employers.

“The main lesson for employers is to think very carefully before applying for injunctions to prevent strikes on the basis of relatively minor mistakes by the unions. The costs for the two employers involved in these cases will have been very substantial indeed and they will also have to meet the unions’ costs—unless, of course, there is a successful appeal.”
 

Issue: 7456 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll