UK Trade Union Law Incompatible with Article 11 ECHR, Supreme Court Rules

13th May 2024

Employment law, Newbury, Berkshire.

In the recent case of Mercer v Alternative Fuel Group (1) Secretary of State for Business and Trade (2,) the Supreme Court was asked to consider whether s146 Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRCA) protected striking workers from detriment short of dismissal.

The Claimant was a UNISON workplace representative and an employee of the Respondent. The Respondent suspended her on basic pay (resulting in a loss of overtime pay) and gave her a written warning after she was involved in planning and taking part in lawful strike action. She brought a claim under s146 TULRCA claiming detriment short of dismissal for organising and participating in strike action.

The Supreme Court held:

  • that s146 TULRCA did not provide protection for detriment short of dismissal for taking part in or organising industrial action. The Claimant could not bring her claim under s146.
  • that this lack of protection encouraged unfair and unreasonable conduct by employers, placing the UK in breach of its obligations under article 11 of the Convention (the right to freedom of association).
  • that it wasn’t possible to interpret s146 in a way which was compatible with article 11.
  • that this meant that UK law was incompatible with article 11.

The Supreme Court exercised its discretion to issue a declaration of incompatibility, holding that ‘section 146 is incompatible with article 11 of the Convention’. It will now be down to Parliament to consider legislative amendments to bring the UK into line in this area.

Back to news

Why Choose Us?

Reasons why clients choose Fenton Elliott to represent them and get the results they expect.

More about us
Simon Fenton

Contact Us Today

If you are looking for employment or family law advice we can help. We will respond quickly to all enquiries.

Contact us