PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - British Airways - CC Industrial Relations Mk V
Old 20th Dec 2009, 20:08
  #1 (permalink)  
flapsforty
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
British Airways - CC Industrial Relations Mk V

As requested by many of you:


British Airways Plc v Unite the Union
Queen's Bench Division
17 December 2009

Case Digest


Summary: Interim injunctions; Industrial action; Industrial action against airlines over Christmas period; Non-compliance with statutory requirements for ballots; Balance of convenience

Abstract: The applicant airline (BA) applied for an interim injunction to restrain the respondent trade union (Unite) from proceeding with industrial action based on the result of a ballot.
BA had embarked on a cost-cutting and efficiency exercise and had sought to reduce its cabin crew headcount. Litigation ensued, but in advance of the trial Unite called for a 12-day strike over the Christmas period.
Notice of intention to ballot cabin crew for the strike, the notice of the results and notice of industrial action was provided to BA. BA claimed that Unite had not complied with the requirements for a ballot under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 s.227 , s226A and s.234A .

According to BA, Unite included in the balloting constituency a significant number of volunteers for redundancy who were known by it to be leaving BA's employment by the relevant date; in its notice of ballot Unite failed to provide accurate figures with regard to the total numbers of employees that it reasonably believed would be entitled to vote in the ballot; and in its notice of industrial action it had failed to provide accurate figures with regard to those employees who might be induced to take part in the strike.
Unite relied on s.232(b) of the Act, claiming that any failure to comply with statutory requirements was accidental.

Held:

(1) There were breaches of technical statutory requirements by Unite.
Unite could not rely on the defence under s.232(b) of the Act, and nor could it say that it had taken such steps as were reasonably practicable for the purposes of s.227, s226A and s.234A.
Unite was in possession of information concerning employees who had volunteered for redundancy. In the light of that information it was aware, or ought to have been aware, that the figures provided to BA included those who opted for voluntary redundancy and thus included Unite's members who were not entitled to vote. It was practicable and reasonable to enquire as to which members were leaving BA's employment.
Unite had never issued instructions to members about not voting if they were leaving BA's employment by the relevant date, despite having had opportunities to do so.
Further, there was insufficient evidence that any inaccuracy in the information provided was due to intransigency on BA's part. Evidence showed that Unite was clearly on notice that its figures were inaccurate and that the balloting process was flawed.

(2) The balance of convenience lay in favour of granting the injunction sought by BA.
Damages were not an adequate remedy for BA and a strike over the 12 days of Christmas was fundamentally more damaging to BA and to the wider public than a strike taking place at almost any other time of the year.

Application granted.
flapsforty is offline