Victory to the (Pharmacy) Workers!

12 February 2013 by

Boots the ChemistPharmacists Defence Association Union v Boots Management Services Ltd – Read judgment

The consequences of the change of approach of the European Court of Human Rights in the Article 11 case of Demir has definitely washed up on the shores of the UK

In a recent decision of the Central Arbitration Committee presided over by Mary Stacey, it was decided that it was necessary to amend the wording of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (Sched 1A para 35) to make it compliant with Article 11 of the ECHR and the decision of the Strasbourg Court in Demir and Baykara v Turkey.

The decision of the CAC is a report from the front line of the battle between independent unions and employers about granting the former recognition.

The independent union in question was the Pharmacists Defence Association Union (PDAU). A previous application by the union had led to talks at the initiative of Boots. However, the Judgment reveals this was just a ruse by Boots to allow them to grant formal recognition to their own sweetheart union, Boots Pharmacists Association. Conventionally this would have stymied the application by PDAU. However, this was a collective agreement lite. It provided for consultation but no bargaining or negotiating rights in relation to pay, hours, holidays, working conditions and terms and conditions of employment. It granted a right to bargain collectively over facilities for Trade Union Officials and consultation machinery only.

The relevant legislative provision provided that an application to the CAC, “is not admissible if the CAC is satisfied that there is already in force a collective agreement under which a union is recognized a entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of any workers falling within the relevant bargaining unit.”

In Demir and Baykara v Turkey [2008] Application no. 34503/97 the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR, in a departure from previous case law, determined that, “the right to bargain collectively with the employer has, in principle, become one of the essential elements of the “right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of [one’s] interests” set forth in Article 11 of the Convention [Para 154]. “

The CAC Panel concluded that the prohibition on an independent union from seeking recognition under the statutory procedure, where no other union (whether independent or otherwise) has collective bargaining rights for at least pay, hours and holidays, was an infringement of Article 11. On that basis they deployed Section 2 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and Ghaidan v Godin – Mendoza [2004] 2 AC 557 and determined that the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (Sched 1A para 35) needed to read as follows so as to comply with the Convention:

35. – (1) An application under paragraph 11 or 12 is not admissible if the CAC is satisfied that there is already in force a collective agreement under which a union is (or unions are) recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining in respect of pay, hours and holiday on behalf of any workers falling within the relevant bargaining unit.


The immediate consequence of this Judgment is that employers seeking to block the recognition of  independent trade unions in the workplace will have to be more sophisticated in their use of “patsy” in-house trade unions as a defensive strategy.

Of more lasting significance is that this is further evidence of the renewed potency of Article 11 since Demir.  

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts:


  1. CAC has made very good decision. It is highly required for the betterment of management and employees of the organisations. The labour laws are made to make the working environment more feasible and productive for both the parties and to have good fruitful results but many unions taking the benefit of law for their personal use. I am sure the step of CAC will make some effective changes in the situation.

  2. What can the PDAU do that is different to the BPA?

  3. This is great news and a benchmark setter for other unions also.

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.




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.


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights 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 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: