Warrington Borough Council v Unite The Union: Legal Battle Over Industrial Action Immunity Amidst 2023/24 Pay Dispute

Citation: [2023] EWHC 3093 (KB)
Judgment on

Introduction

The High Court of Justice Queen’s Bench Division in “Warrington Borough Council v Unite The Union” ([2023] EWHC 3093 (KB)) deals with an application for interim injunctive relief sought by a local authority (‘the claimant’) against a trade union (‘the defendant’). The primary legal question revolves around the legality of industrial action in the face of a trade dispute concerning the 2023/24 pay deal, and whether statutory immunity under section 219(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULR(C)A 1992) applies.

Key Facts

The claimant, a local authority, sought to prevent the defendant, Unite The Union, from calling its employees to take discontinuous strike action. Unite represented a number of the claimant’s employees, primarily based at the Woolston depot for waste services. The application relates to this depot’s employees and accuses the defendant of acting in breach of employment contracts by calling for strike action over the 2023/24 pay deal—a dispute mainly tied to National Joint Council for Local Government Services (NJC) terms.

The dispute pivoted on the defendant’s rejection of the council’s final pay offer for 2023/24 that led to the ballot for industrial action. Subsequent to the industrial action notices and local negotiations that invoked national pay deal mechanisms, the National Employers for local government services reached a collective agreement on the pay deal. The defendant, in dispute with the council, pressed on with the industrial action despite this agreement, prompting the current legal action.

The legal principles central to this case include the interpretation of statutory immunity under TULR(C)A, specifically sections 219 and 244, regarding actions in furtherance of a trade dispute, and the requirements set out in section 229 concerning the ballot process prior to the call for industrial action.

Another vital element is the application of the American Cyanamid principles, tested against section 221(2) of TULR(C)A that calls for considering the likelihood of the defendant’s success in demonstrating immunity at trial.

The crux of the case centers on whether the trade dispute described in the ballot remains the dispute for which the industrial action is called, or if the nature of the dispute has unlawfully shifted focus. The claimant contended that the dispute had become localized and specific to waste workers’, deviating from the original ballot’s dispute; whereas, the defendant maintained the continuity of the dispute.

Outcomes

The Honourable Mrs Justice Eady, upon examining the case, ruled that the hypothetical reasonable member of the union would understand the dispute concerning the 2023/24 pay deal to continue post the pay agreement reached on 1 November 2023. Consequently, the defendant’s actions are likely to be found to be in furtherance of the original trade dispute, rendering it likely they will establish statutory immunity at trial.

Furthermore, despite the impact of the strike on public services, Mrs Justice Eady found this case was not exceptional enough to warrant an injunction as the balance of convenience—including considering the rights of the defendant and its members—did not overwhelmingly support the claimant.

Conclusion

The judgment in “Warrington Borough Council v Unite The Union” is emblematic of the intricate balance the courts must strike between industrial action rights and public interest. It establishes that when considering interference with a contractual obligation in the context of industrial action, the courts must be meticulous in determining the genuine nature and evolution of a trade dispute. The continuous nature and character of the dispute, as elucidated through the real-world context of negotiations and actions of the parties, form the judicial lens for determining the applicability of statutory immunity. This case affirms the principle that a union’s intention in pursuing a dispute, rather than the specific content of negotiations, underpins the legitimacy of continued industrial action.