The British Airways strike and the human right to free assembly [updated]

18 May 2010 by

British Airways Plc v Unite the Union Queen’s Bench Division, 17 May 2010 Read judgment

Update (07/06/20) – this decision was reversed by the Court of Appeal on 20/05/10. We will comment on the Court of Appeal decision when it is available.

The High Court has granted an injunction for the second time in 6 months against a strike planned by British Airways cabin crew, scheduled to begin today. Those who had trips planned will be delighted, but the Unite trade union who represented the workers have called the decision a “landmark attack on free trade unionism and the right to take industrial action” and are to appeal the judgment.

The union argued that a recent series of similar injunctions against strike action ran foul of the Human Rights Act 1998. Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights grants the right to freedom of assembly. However, the right can be restricted in certain limited circumstances, as it was in this case.

The injunction was granted on the basis of a technical breach of trade union rules relating to members votes. The Judge ruled that Unite did not tell its members about the number of spoilt ballot papers in the last dispute, and that as such it was arguably in breach of the strict requirements under section 231 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which states that as soon as is reasonably practical, a trade union must inform all those entitled to vote in a ballot of, amongst other things, the number of spoiled voting papers.

When applying for an interim injunction, an applicant need only show that they have a “good arguable claim“; the hearing is not intended to represent a full hearing of the merits of the case (see American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Limited [1975] AC 396).

The right to free assembly

The Unite Union argued that if they were prevented from striking as a result of failing to follow the rules 1992 Act, this would constitute a breach of their members’ rights under Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides that “Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.”

As is common with Convention rights, the right can be restricted if that restriction is proportionate, with the test of proportionality being that it is “necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”.

Metrobus blocking the road

Standing in the way of Unite’s argument on human rights was the powerful recent judgment in Metrobus Ltd v Unite the Union [2009] EWCA Civ 829 (31 July 2009), where the Court of Appeal held that the statutory requirements relating to ballots and strike notification (Part V of the 1992 Act) do not unduly restrict the exercise of the right to strike; that the legislation has been carefully adapted over many years, in order to balance the interests of employers, unions and members of the public; and that its provisions are therefore proportionate (see paras 101 to 113 of the judgment.)

In yesterday’s High Court decision, Mr Justice McCombe only made brief mention of the human rights argument (see para 48 of the judgment) and ruled that his hands were tied as he could not go behind the Court of Appeal judgment. He said

Both counsel, I think, were inclined to accept that the broad thrust of the attack on the legislation in the light of the European Convention on Human Rights could not be satisfactorily maintained in court of first instance.   That is a matter that now remains within the scope of the Court of Appeal or possibly the Supreme Court.  In the light of the decision of the Court of Appeal in Metrobus, I would not be inclined to refuse an injunction on the basis that reliance on the statute by the airline was in some manner incompatible with the Convention.

John Hendy QC, for Unite, also acted for Unite in the Metrobus case as well as in a similar dispute against BA in December 2009.

As Mrs Justice Cox made similar points in the December 2009 incarnation of this dispute (British Airways Plc v Unite the Union [2009] EWHC 3541 (QB) (17 December 2009)), saying that she was bound by that decision and could not therefore go behind it in order to declare that the statutory framework ran contrary to the Human Rights Act.

She did, however, sound a warning that as well as human rights legislation, the UK was also party to various international instruments which recognised the right to strike, and that “Sooner or later, the extent to which the current statutory regime is in compliance with those international obligations and with relevant international jurisprudence will fall to be carefully reconsidered” (para 27).

Watch this space

Unite again fell foul of the Metrobus judgment again in yesterday’s ruling. They are likely to argue in the coming appeal that Metrobus has resulted in a disproportionate restriction on the rights to freedom of assembly by opening the door for employers to prevent strikes as a result of relatively small breaches of trade union rules. British Airways will say that the rules are there for good reason and the strictness of application is proportionate to the enormous cost and disruption that strikes can cause.

It is unlikely, however, that the Court of Appeal will go behind its own decision in Metrobus, and the case may ultimately have to go to the Supreme Court for a final answer.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: