Young, James and Webster v United Kingdom
Dismissing railway workers for refusing to join a trade union under a closed shop agreement breached their freedom of association, which includes some protection for the right not to join.
Facts
Mr Young, Mr James and Mr Webster were employed by British Rail. British Rail entered into a closed shop agreement with three trade unions, under which membership of one of the unions became a condition of employment. The applicants, who had been employed before the agreement was made, objected to joining a union for reasons of personal conviction, and were dismissed. Under the law at the time, their dismissals were fair.
Legal principle
The European Court of Human Rights held that there had been a violation of article 11. The court did not decide whether article 11 guaranteed a general negative right not to join a union, but said that a threat of dismissal involving loss of livelihood is a most serious form of compulsion, and that compelling people who had been employed before the closed shop was introduced to join a particular union, on pain of dismissal, struck at the very substance of the freedom of association guaranteed by article 11. The court also took into account their freedom of thought and expression. Closed shops were later effectively outlawed in the United Kingdom.
Related cases on religion, expression, assembly and association (articles 9 to 11)
- Attorney General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2) [1990] 1 AC 109
- Demir and Baykara v Turkey (2009) 48 EHRR 54
- Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd [1993] AC 534
- Director of Public Prosecutions v Ziegler [2021] UKSC 23, [2022] AC 408
- Eweida v United Kingdom (2013) 57 EHRR 8
- Handyside v United Kingdom (1979) 1 EHRR 737
- Jersild v Denmark (1995) 19 EHRR 1
- Kokkinakis v Greece (1994) 17 EHRR 397
Studying human rights 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.
