@
Ancient Observer
· the Court departed* from previous High Court case law by deciding that, when complying with TULRCA rules about notifying the employer about the numbers, categories and workplaces of the employees involved in the dispute (in the ballot notice), it must provide those figures which are as accurate as reasonably practicable in the light of information it possesses at the time. The Court stated that these were "important limiting words" which need to be given weight when considering a union's obligation. As such, the trade union had complied in the circumstances. Importantly, by focusing on the information actually in the hands of the union, the Court rejected the notion that trade unions have a duty to keep proper records, or collect further information, specifically in order to comply with the balloting and notice rules under TULRCA. However, this does not mean that trade unions escape any obligation in this respect; as the Court pointed out, it must still supply the employer with information as accurately as it reasonably can, for example, collate and obtain relevant documents from union officers and analyse the information
* = My emphasis.
That goes some way to explaining the detailed breakdown of membership provided by Unite to BA ... i.e. they have done all they can to get the number correct.
What it does in respect of the
reasons for IA will, of course, be a different and more complex question.