British Airways vs. BASSA (Airline Staff Only)

[PPRuNe Pop]

Speaks for itself.

BRITISH AIRWAYS PLC v UNITE THE UNION

QBD (McCombe J) 17/5/2010

An interim injunction to restrain a trade union from proceeding with proposed industrial actions against an airline and inducing its employees to breach their contract of employment was granted as it was arguable that the trade union had failed to comply with the strict requirements of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 s.231 to take such steps as were reasonably necessary to ensure that all persons entitled to vote in a ballot were informed of the information specified under that provision.

The applicant airline (B) applied for an interim injunction to restrain the respondent trade union (U) from inducing B's employees to breach their contract of employment by proceeding with proposed industrial actions. U had proposed to proceed with industrial actions between certain specified periods following the results of a ballot which supported the actions. B's case was that although U had taken every step to communicate the results of the ballot it had failed to take reasonably necessary steps to ensure that all persons entitled to vote in the ballot were informed of the information specified by the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 s.231, namely the number of votes cast in the ballot, the number of individuals answering "yes" to the relevant question, the number of individuals answering "no" and the number of spoiled voting papers. B maintained that all relevant information was available in a scrutiniser's report but U had not taken any active steps to make the information available.

According to U, the information in question was available from separate sources, including websites, notice boards at work and news sheets at suitable locations. B submitted that U had failed to comply with the strict requirements of the Act and, therefore, its industrial actions would be without the protection afforded under s.219 and illegal.

B also argued that there would be severe economic and reputational damage if the injunction was refused. U argued that in view of its rights under the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.11 the injunction should be refused.


HELD:

(1) In light of the decision in Metrobus Ltd v Unite the Union (2009) EWCA Civ 829, (2010) ICR 173 concerning the requirements imposed on trade unions by the Act and restrictions on rights under art.11, the court would refuse to grant an injunction on the basis that s.231 of the Act was incompatible with the Convention, Metrobus followed.

(2) In exercising its discretion whether to grant the injunction, the court would have regard to the likelihood of success at trial in accordance with s.221(2) of the Act. It was not possible to hold that U's likelihood of success at trial was overwhelming. Also, it was arguable that U had failed to comply with the strict requirements of s.231, namely to take such steps as were reasonably necessary to ensure that all persons entitled to vote in the ballot were informed of the information specified under the provision. In the circumstances, the balance of convenience lay in favour of granting the injunction to B.

Injunction granted.