Topics

Industrial action

New and updated

  • Date:
    1 November 1995
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Industrial action: Participation of new members does not invalidate strike ballot

    A trade union is not required to restrict its call for industrial action to those of its members who were members at the date of the ballot and who were given an opportunity to vote in it, holds the Court of Appeal in London Underground Ltd v National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers.

  • Date:
    29 November 1988
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Industrial action: Mere presence of pickets can be inducement to breach contract

    In Union Traffic Ltd v Transport and General Workers' Union and others, the Court of Appeal holds that, in certain circumstances, the mere presence of pickets can constitute an inducement of those seeking to cross the picket line to break their contracts of employment and so be unlawful.

  • Date:
    31 March 1987
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Industrial action: Employer entitled to deduct pay for industrial action

    Workers who are on strike, or who, by way of industrial action, refuse to carry out their duties, are not entitled to be paid unless the employer accepts such work as is performed during industrial action as complete performance of the worker's duties. So holds the House of Lords in Miles v Wakefield Metropolitan District Council, rejecting Mr Miles' claim for wages in respect of a period of industrial action.

  • Date:
    2 April 1985
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Industrial action: Injunctions restraining unlawful picketing

    In what was perhaps the most significant of all the cases arising out of the miners' dispute, Thomas & others v National Union of Mineworkers (South Wales Area) & others, the High Court grants injunctions restraining picketing of colliery gates in numbers greater than six.

  • Date:
    6 December 1983
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Industrial action: POEU dispute not related mainly to redundancy fears

    The Employment Act 1982 narrowed the definition of a trade dispute so that a dispute must now relate wholly or mainly to one of the specified matters. In Mercury Communications Ltd v Scott-Gamer and The Post Office Engineering Union, the Court of Appeal examines documents and letters written on behalf of the union and concludes that the POEU probably could not show that the dispute arose from fear of redundancies rather than from its political objections to the Government's policies.

  • Date:
    26 July 1983
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Industrial action: Byelaw renders picketing unlawful

    Peaceful picketing at or near a person's own place of work for the purpose of obtaining or communicating information, or persuading others not to work, is lawful if it is in contemplation of furtherance of a trade dispute. However, this does not give the right to contravene byelaws made in pursuance of a power conferred by statute, holds the High Court in British Airports Authority v Ashton and others.

  • Date:
    1 January 1980
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    MacShane and Ashton v Express Newspapers Ltd

    In MacShane and Ashton v Express Newspapers Ltd [1980] IRLR 35 HL, the House of Lords held that the Court of Appeal had erred in granting an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from instructing NUJ members employed on national newspapers to "black" copy from the Press Association.

  • Date:
    1 January 1974
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    JE Broome v Director of Public Prosecutions

    In JE Broome v Director of Public Prosecutions [1974] IRLR 26 HL, the House of Lords held that the appellant had no authority or excuse under the Industrial Relations Act, section 134 for willfully obstructing free passage along the highway contrary to the Highways Act, section 121.

  • Date:
    31 December 1972
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Secretary of State for Employment v ASLEF (No 2)

    In Secretary of State for Employment v ASLEF (No 2) [1972] 2 All ER 949 CA, the Court of Appeal held that works rules or job descriptions are not of themselves contractual. They are guides as to the way in which work should be performed and should be interpreted in a reasonable way. If interpreted in an unreasonable way in order to disrupt employment this will be breach of contract.