Right to strike is being eroded, says BA union

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Previous dispute at bus firm uncovered loophole seized on by lawyers in British Airways case

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009 ... lot-ruling" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A swath of strike ballots are in danger of being struck down under legal challenges using the same loopholes that disabled the 12-day British Airways strike.

According to sources close to active industrial disputes, a number of strike ballots involving rail and bus operators are facing legal challenges using the same arguments that won BA a surprise injunction this week.

BA's lawyers were inspired by a case against a bus strike in London last year that was ruled illegal due to irregularities in the ballot running up to industrial action. Metrobus won the legal battle using a section of the 1992 Trade Union Act that requires unions to give the company accurate voting information, including the number of employees who voted and details of their respective departments.

The revelation comes as Unite, which lost the Metrobus and BA court fights, officially informed the airline today that it will re-ballot crew members for industrial action early in the new year. In a letter to BA's head of human resources, Tony McCarthy, the union requested employee information that would enable it to provide "the most accurate information possible concerning the ballot".

An industrial relations expert said the number of injunctions secured under the 1992 act had nearly trebled over the past year. "Because the demands [under the act] are so onerous it provides a large enough canvas on which employers can look for mistakes to find the grounds for an injunction, or the threat of one. Because of the threat quite a lot of ballots have been stood down," said Prof Gregor Gall, a professor in industrial relations at the University of Hertfordshire. Including the BA case, employers have applied for at least 11 injunctions this year under the 1992 act and have been successful eight times, according to Gall. Seven of the injunctions have been sought by transport firms, and two by Royal Mail. A further 12 businesses have threatened injunctions in 2009.

A trade union source said the Metrobus case had rapidly gained notoriety within the movement as legal cases have snowballed. "When you say Metrobus in union circles people gasp, because of the ramifications of what it represented." The source added that there was now serious concern among union leaders in the wake of the BA decision that the 1992 act, brought in under a Conservative government, will gain even greater potency under a new Tory administration.

A Unite spokesman said: "People have to face up to the fact that the right to strike is being eroded."

BA's lawyers used a similar argument when they secured a high court injunction against a 12-day strike by cabin crew that would have brought the airline to a halt from next Tuesday until 2 January. Mrs Justice Cox ruled the vote unlawful after hearing that about 900 cabin crew were balloted despite taking voluntary redundancy, which meant they would not be working for the airline at the time of any industrial action. It allowed BA to neutralise a strike vote that had a 92% majority on an 80% turnout.

Marc Meryon, architect of the Metrobus case and industrial relations partner at Bircham Dyson Bell, said: "It means that unions cannot run with the argument that if they have a majority in favour of a strike, you should allow it even while overlooking technical defects."

Meryon's firm has recently advised on a number of strike polls in a range of sectors including transport. It is understood that other companies caught up in the Metrobus strike, which hit bus operators across the capital, have been able to sue Unite for compensation for organising strike action which was retrospectively unlawful. The BA and Metrobus rulings could inspire more compensation claims, because companies can sue over strikes that occurred six years ago if they discover voting irregularities.

Meanwhile, Unite is still digesting the consequences of a ruling that the union has labelled a "disastrous day for democracy". The union said in a statement today that it was minded to move "swiftly" towards a new strike ballot rather than appeal against the ruling: "Unite, while not ruling out a future appeal, is expected to move swiftly towards a fresh ballot, believing it to be the surest way to ensure members' voices are heard."

[norbert]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... injunction" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/columnists ... -21908141/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
ttp://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/dec/19 ... ike-ruling" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[borders]

"Striking workers have never had any favours from the High Court. And today's injunction outlawing this week's planned strike by British Airways' cabin crew is a classic of its kind.

Never mind the basic democratic right to withdraw your own labour, underpinned by a 92% yes vote on an 80% turnout. The anti-union laws first introduced by Margaret Thatcher and hailed by Tony Blair as "the most restrictive in the western world" mean that balloting technicalities and loopholes can routinely be exploited by employers to declare strikes unlawful".

[borders]

when we lose our democratic right to withdraw our labour, what have we become ? modern day slaves ....

[La Poste]

It just menas that the unions have to make sure they do it right.
They have to make sure they follow correct proceedure. Unite should have realised this after they lost the first time with the bus company.
I agree the law is totally loaded against the working man and industrial action but unions have to be on top of this.

[borders]

agreed ,we need to box smarter !!

[norbert]

"The BA and Metrobus rulings could inspire more compensation claims, because companies can sue over strikes that occurred six years ago if they discover voting irregularities."
the worrying bit

[La Poste]

"The BA and Metrobus rulings could inspire more compensation claims, because companies can sue over strikes that occurred six years ago if they discover voting irregularities."
the worrying bit

Very worrying, they could then send the union a hefty bill and bankrupt it.

[norbert]

"The BA and Metrobus rulings could inspire more compensation claims, because companies can sue over strikes that occurred six years ago if they discover voting irregularities."
the worrying bit

Very worrying, they could then send the union a hefty bill and bankrupt it.

SOGAT & the NUM - back to the 80's only more "subtle"

http://www.unionhistory.info/timeline/1960_2000_7.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[smokerjim]

Does this mean that postal votes from overseas ( such as from service personnel on detatchment ) will make any general election result null & void? Yeah, right

[norbert]

Does this mean that postal votes from overseas ( such as from service personnel on detatchment ) will make any general election result null & void? Yeah, right

The judge at the end of the day was just another State Servant - it wouldn't have been a good career move to go against Brown or the media .

Agree about the ex pats - they've helped the Tory Party out a few times , then you've had all those black " felons " in the States who'd vote Democrat in the states "disappearing" & getting Dubya in .