Legal nit-picking that undermines the right to strike

Dec 21 2009 by Kevin Rowan, The Journal

THE news that the Unite cabin crew strike at British Airways was the subject of a High Court injunction was greeted with radically divergent views.

The union, now forced to suspend the action and consider both a re-ballot and/or an appeal against the ruling, have described this as an affront to democracy. The employer, who, like others, threw significant financial resources at securing this legal intervention, are delighted to have thwarted the trade union in exercising one of the most fundamental rights in modern democracies, the right to take industrial action without prejudice.

Let us all be clear, no workers anywhere are naturally inclined toward going on strike. This is a massive decision. Many of the workers affected earn less than £20,000 per year, very few earn very much more than that; being prepared to lose 12 days’ pay is a serious indication of the strength of feeling cabin crew have about the one-sided approach to deciding new, worse terms and conditions of employment in BA.

It takes two sides to have a dispute, this one was triggered by the imposition in November by BA of new working practices, which would see between one and three crew members taken off flights, in the process hitting the customer service standards for which the airline is known. BA’s imposition also dismantles long-standing collective agreements which govern working arrangements and payment structures. With three quarters of this group of staff earning £20,000 after many years’ service, allowances make up a considerable portion of their earnings.

Very little of the substance of the disagreement in BA appears to be in the public domain. What seems to be more apposite for public consumption is the apparent outrage that these workers could go on strike at this time and the regrettable delight that the British judicial system allows a legal technicality to override the overwhelmingly democratic and legitimate views of a large group of workers seeking to protect decent standards for themselves and BA customers.

The injunction centres on the fact that some workers were balloted for industrial action who subsequently left employment with BA, meaning that technically Unite had not provided the employer with the correct details of who would be on strike. The outcome of the ballot was absolute in its clarity; 80% of a 12,500 workforce voted on a ratio of nine to one to take strike action. The votes that are legally challengeable, even if they all voted against the strike, would have made very little impression on the outcome.

In other aspects of employment law breaches in ‘process’ are disregarded if there is sufficient understanding which demonstrates the outcome would have been the same. In these circumstances Unite are wholly justified that this is a judicial undermining of very clear industrial democracy. This is especially true given that this type of legal intervention is being used more and more frequently by employers who have failed to reach a negotiated settlement with their workforce in a clear move to undermine a fundamental human right; the right to strike.

Kevin Rowan, Regional Secretary, Northern TUC