Thomas Cook Airlines Ltd v British Airline Pilots Association, Court of Appeal - Queen's Bench Division, September 06, 2017, [2017] EWHC 2253 (QB)

Issuing Organization:Queen's Bench Division
Actores:Thomas Cook Airlines Ltd v British Airline Pilots Association
Resolution Date:September 06, 2017
 
FREE EXCERPT

Case No: HQ17X03156

Neutral Citation Number: [2017] EWHC 2253 (QB)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London

WC2A 2LL

Date: 06/09/2017

Before:

MR. JUSTICE LAVENDER

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

(Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of

Marten Walsh Cherer Limited, 1st Floor, Quality House,

6-9 Quality Court, Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1HP.

Telephone Number 020 7067 2900. Fax Number 020 7831 6864

e-mail: info@martenwalshcherer.com)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. JOHN CAVANAGH QC and MR. JULIAN MILFORD (instructed by Eversheds Sutherland) for the Applicant/Claimant

MR. OLIVER SEGAL QC and MR. STUART BRITTENDEN (instructed by Farrer & Co.) for the Respondent/Defendant

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

JUDGMENTIf this Transcript is to be reported or published, there is a requirement to ensure that no reporting restriction will be breached. This is particularly important in relation to any case involving a sexual offence, where the victim is guaranteed lifetime anonymity (Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992), or where an order has been made in relation to a young person.

This Transcript is Crown Copyright. It may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority. All rights are reserved.

MR. JUSTICE LAVENDER :

  1. The claimant company seeks an injunction to restrain the defendant trade union from calling a strike. The context is a dispute between the parties over the pay and conditions of pilots employed by the claimant. The merits of that dispute are not relevant to the issues which I have to decide. However, it is relevant to note that the dispute is acknowledged to be a trade dispute as defined in section 244(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which I will refer to as the 1992 Act.

  2. The defendant held a ballot of its members. The question asked in the ballot paper was as follows: "Are you prepared to take part in industrial action consisting of a strike?" The defendant's members voted in favour of industrial action.

  3. The defendant says that calling a strike will be lawful. It relies on the protection provided to trade unions by section 219 of the 1992 Act for actions done in furtherance of a trade dispute. Section 226(1)(a) provides that that protection only applies to industrial action which has the support of a ballot. This means a ballot which complies with the requirements of sections 227 to 231 of the 1992 Act. The defendant says that the ballot complied with all of those statutory requirements.

  4. The claimant says that the ballot failed to comply with one of them, that is the requirement imposed by section 229(2D) of the 1992 Act. This is a new provision. It was introduced by the Trade Unions Act 2016. It took effect on 1st March 2017. It has not been considered by a court...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR FREE TRIAL