In Secretary of State for Business and Trade v Mercer, the Supreme Court held that s.146 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULR(C)A) is incompatible with art.11 as it does not protect workers against detriment for participating in industrial action.
In Mercer v Alternative Future Group Ltd and another, the Court of Appeal held that legislation that provides protection against detriment for trade union activities cannot be interpreted to cover detriment for participation in industrial action.
In Hartley and others v King Edward VI College [2017] IRLR 763 SC, the Supreme Court held that, when deducting pay from employees' wages in respect of their participation in strike action on the relevant days, the appropriate daily rate of deduction was one-365th of the employees' annual salary, rather than one-260th as had been applied by the employer.
The Supreme Court has held that the pay of teachers must be deducted at a daily rate of 1/365th of their annual salary, rather than 1/260th, for a one-day strike.
The European Court of Human Rights has held that UK laws that prohibit secondary or "sympathy" industrial action do not violate art.11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which covers freedom of assembly and association.
The Court of Appeal has held that, where a union serves notice on the employer of intended industrial action, one notice is sufficient for both continuous and discontinuous industrial action.
In Sehmi v Gate Gourmet London Ltd; Sandhu and others v Gate Gourmet London Ltd EAT/0264/08 & EAT/0265/08, the EAT held that, while the withdrawal by an employee of his or her labour will not necessarily justify dismissal, in a situation where large numbers of employees deliberately absent themselves from work in a manner that is liable to do serious damage to the employer's business, dismissal of those taking part in the action will be reasonable, even where the absence is not prolonged.