|
17
December 2008
Unite have been pushing
for pay rises and central pay bargaining across London buses,
but on the 9 October 2008 their attempts to secure equal treatment
for bus drivers were dealt a serious blow in the High Court
as once again the anti-union laws were used by an employer.
Metrobus were granted
an injunction on the basis that employers wanted to argue
that the time taken by the union to notify them of the ballot
was too long and they should have been told numbers of drivers
by category of driver. The union had never been asked for
such information before and there had been no challenge on
this previously.
Industrial action on Metrobus,
due to take place on the 10 October was stopped but went ahead
on routes covered by FirstGroup and Metroline.
However, they too have
effectively stopped further action after going to the same
lawyers to block the union's action. Those bus companies are
now threatening claims for damages they incurred during the
union's fight for equal treatment.
How can Metrobus get away
with this? First, the employer in the UK only has to show
there is a serious issue to be tried and the Judge is obliged
to consider granting an injunction. They don't even have to
show they have a good argument on the law or based on evidence.
Second, the law says the
union has to tell the employer the result of the ballot as
soon as reasonably practicable. If the company find out after
24 hours as opposed to 48, it makes no difference to the action
that follows - the union still has to serve a 7 day notice
of action. But the provision in the Trade Union and Labour
Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 gives the company a peg
to hang a claim for an injunction on.
Third, the law says the
union has to supply information about numbers, categories
and workplaces of those expected to take part in the strike.
The justification given for this is to allow the employer
to inform its workers and plan in relation to any action.
But with Metrobus the challenge is based on the employer's
claim that their information about who should be taking part
in the ballot is better than the union's.
The McDonnell amendment
on Ballots (Employment Bill) would have placed a duty on the
employers to cooperate with UNITE during the ballot. Such
cooperation would have helped industrial relations and promoted
equality across the London bus sector - as well as bring UK
laws more in line with our international obligations.
Read more:
Another
blow to union rights - Metrobus v UNITE - workers lose out
to business
Sep 2009
|
