|
19
March 2010
Following the High Court's
decision to halt legitimate industrial action by British Airways
cabin crew in December, anti-trade union legislation has once
again been used by employers to prevent strike action by Unite
members in the Milford Haven Port Authority (MHPA).
Both the BA and Milford
Haven cases saw technicalities exploited under the 1992 Trade
Union and Labour Relations Consolidation Act (TULRCA) allowing
employers to secure injunctions preventing strike action.
These cases are not alone.
Other unions have seen a flurry of action delayed by challenges
using the anti-trade union laws.
It was described as a
"disastrous day for democracy" by Unite's General Secretaries,
when the court granted an injunction to BA to prevent workers
taking action to defend their conditions from attacks by the
employer. The court judgment overturned a clear mandate by
BA cabin crew members who had voted with a 92.5% majority
on an 80% turnout and were forced to re-ballot members.
Unite said that the judgment
underlined the extent to which the law is tilted against the
rights of the ordinary person at work, and how a determined
employer with unlimited resources can frustrate the fundamental
right of workers to withdraw their labour as a last resort
to ensure their voice is heard.
BA exploited a legal loophole
concerning the balloting of staff who had applied for voluntary
redundancy. The judge, Unite said, had made what was a "clearly
political ruling".
The Milford Haven case
centres on a dispute over pensions involving Harbour Pilots
and Launch Crews and what must go into any notice of industrial
action. MHPA sought an injunction to stop industrial action
on the basis that notices informing the employer of the planned
action did not comply with TULRCA.
The High Court initially
granted MHPA's application for an injunction, agreeing with
the employer that the notices were in the wrong form and that
the pilots and launch crews should be prevented from taking
strike action.
Although the injunction
was discharged by the Court of Appeal as no longer necessary,
after Unite said it would not rely on the notices, and the
strike itself was not deemed unlawful, the original injunction
illustrates how easy it is for employers to pursue and win
rulings over how notices of continuous and discontinuous action
must be given.
Read more:
Exploitation
of anti-union laws represent a major attack on workers' rights
20 Jan 2010
Metrobus
Workers' Fight for Equal Treatment Halted By Anti-Union Laws
Dec 2008
|
