Employment

Trade dispute employees opposition to councils contracting out proposals strike ballot lawfulUnison v Westminster City Council: CA (Lords Justices Pill, Mantell and Buxton):21 March 2001A city council ran an advice unit employing 75 staff.

It intended to transfer the units business to a private company.

Employees who were union members opposed the transfer, wishing to remain employed by the council.

The union served a notice for a strike ballot on the council.

The council applied for an interim injunction restraining the union from taking strike action.

The judge granted the injunction, holding that the dispute was predominantly about public policy and thus not a trade dispute within sections 219 and 244 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and that the ballot notice did not contain sufficient details to meet the requirements of section 226A of the Act.

The union appealed.John Hendy QC and Damien Brown (instructed by the solicitor, Unison) for the union; Charles Bar (instructed by Director of Legal Services, Westminster City Council) for the council.Held, allowing the appeal, that section 219 of the Act gave unions tortious immunity for strikes called in furtherance of a trade dispute as defined in section 244; that the evidence and the significant implications of the employees transfer to a private company lead to the clear conclusion that the dispute concerned predominantly terms and conditions of employment and was thus a trade dispute; and that the unions detailing in the notice of the employees to be balloted was sufficient to meet the requirements of section 226A of the Act.