Mercury Communications Ltd v Scott-Garner
Industrial action aimed mainly at opposing government policy, rather than at the terms and conditions of the workers, was not in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute.
Facts
The Post Office Engineering Union instructed its members employed by British Telecom not to connect the telephone network of Mercury, a new competitor, to the British Telecom network. The action was part of a campaign against the government's policy of liberalising the telecommunications industry and privatising British Telecom. The union argued that the action was in furtherance of a trade dispute about job security, because the competition from Mercury would threaten its members' jobs. Mercury sought an interim injunction.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal granted the injunction. Sir John Donaldson MR said that the dispute was not wholly or mainly about the terms and conditions of the workers, or about job security, as required by the definition of a trade dispute in the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974, as amended. It was mainly a dispute about the union's opposition to the government's policies of liberalisation and privatisation, which was a political dispute. The union was therefore unlikely to establish its immunity at trial, and the injunction should be granted.
Related cases on trade unions and industrial action
- ASLEF v United Kingdom (2007) 45 EHRR 34
- British Airways plc v Unite the Union (No 2) [2010] EWCA Civ 669, [2010] ICR 1316
- Demir and Baykara v Turkey (2009) 48 EHRR 54
- Express Newspapers Ltd v McShane [1980] AC 672
- International Transport Workers' Federation v Viking Line ABP Case C-438/05, [2007] ECR I-10779
- Kostal UK Ltd v Dunkley [2021] UKSC 47
- Laval un Partneri Ltd v Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet Case C-341/05, [2007] ECR I-11767
- Metrobus Ltd v Unite the Union [2009] EWCA Civ 829, [2010] ICR 173
Studying employment law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
