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.

Comments are closed.

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.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas 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 care homes 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 diplomatic relations 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 hague convention Harry Dunn 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 ouster clauses 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 procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee 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 The Round Up 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 Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


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: