I think that this recent judgment from the Supreme Court may deserve its own thread for discussion.
This appeal concerned the status of a gap in the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act (TULRCA) 1992 around the protection for those engaged in lawful industrial action.
Ms Mercer was a UNISON member and organiser who was suspended by her employer in retaliation for her participation in lawful industrial action. She brought her claim to the Employment Tribunal citing protections in Article 11 of the Convention Rights. Her claim was unsuccessful, though the Judge did comment on the possibility of conflict between the drafting of the Article 11 rights, and the TULRCA in not providing protection in law for taking industrial action, except against unfair dismissal.
Mercer appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. Here, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, accepting that the TULRCA was insufficient for the purposes of applying Mercer's Article 11 rights.
The Secretary of State was given permission to intervene on the case, and was successful in arguing before the Court of Appeal that they should not make a 'declaration of incompatibility' between the TULRCA and the Convention Rights.
Last year, Ms Mercer appealed to the Supreme Court. Now they have unanimously decided to allow her appeal, and to grant the declaration. The court rejected the Minister's submissions, and decided that the current wording of the TULRCA stands for a nullification of an Article 11 right.
The Act must now be reconsidered by Parliament, in order to resolve the incompatibility. The judgement means that the Employment Tribunal is now entitled to conclude that employees cannot suffer a detriment at work for taking part in otherwise lawful industrial action in, for example being demoted or given a formal warning, as long as this is in line with the principles of Article 11.
The press trail summarising the decision is attached in PDF format to this post for further reading.
The full judgment is available to read in HTML at this link: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2024/12.html
And the oral summary by Lady Simler is available to listen to on YouTube:
This appeal concerned the status of a gap in the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act (TULRCA) 1992 around the protection for those engaged in lawful industrial action.
Ms Mercer was a UNISON member and organiser who was suspended by her employer in retaliation for her participation in lawful industrial action. She brought her claim to the Employment Tribunal citing protections in Article 11 of the Convention Rights. Her claim was unsuccessful, though the Judge did comment on the possibility of conflict between the drafting of the Article 11 rights, and the TULRCA in not providing protection in law for taking industrial action, except against unfair dismissal.
Mercer appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. Here, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, accepting that the TULRCA was insufficient for the purposes of applying Mercer's Article 11 rights.
The Secretary of State was given permission to intervene on the case, and was successful in arguing before the Court of Appeal that they should not make a 'declaration of incompatibility' between the TULRCA and the Convention Rights.
Last year, Ms Mercer appealed to the Supreme Court. Now they have unanimously decided to allow her appeal, and to grant the declaration. The court rejected the Minister's submissions, and decided that the current wording of the TULRCA stands for a nullification of an Article 11 right.
The Act must now be reconsidered by Parliament, in order to resolve the incompatibility. The judgement means that the Employment Tribunal is now entitled to conclude that employees cannot suffer a detriment at work for taking part in otherwise lawful industrial action in, for example being demoted or given a formal warning, as long as this is in line with the principles of Article 11.
The press trail summarising the decision is attached in PDF format to this post for further reading.
The full judgment is available to read in HTML at this link: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2024/12.html
And the oral summary by Lady Simler is available to listen to on YouTube:
