''Mercer v Alternative Future Group Ltd'' UKSC 12
is a UK labour law">024
UKSC 12
is a UK labour law case, concerning the right to strike for fair wages and to not be subjected to detriment.

Facts

Mercer was suspended after organising strikes for better wages as a trade union representative for Unison in her workplace at the Alternative Futures Group, a charity with the slogan "Amazing people... doing amazing things... every day". The employer claimed strike action was not protected from detriment under

TULRCA 1992 The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (c. 52) is a UK act of Parliament which regulates United Kingdom labour law. The act applies in full in England and Wales and in Scotland, and partially in Northern Ireland. The law ...

section 146, which did not extend to strikes by its reference to the "appropriate time". Mercer argued it was necessary to protect strike action among other things to comply with the right to strike and

freedom of association Freedom of association encompasses both an individual's right to join or leave groups voluntarily, the right of the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of its members, and the right of an association to accept or decline membe ...

ECHR article 11 Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects the right to freedom of assembly and association, including the right to form trade unions, subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democr ...

. The Tribunal held that an interpretation of section 146 to cover detriment for strike action would go against the "legislative scheme". The Secretary of State intervened on the employer's side.

Judgment

Employment Appeal Tribunal

Choudhury J held that TULRCA 1992 section 146 could be interpreted compatibly with ECHR article 11, to protect the right to industrial action. Although on a proper construction protection fell for strike action fell under section 152, not section 146, it could be possible to effectively add a new sub paragraph (c) that time in working hours on strike was protected. To permit disciplinary action against workers simply for exercising the right to strike would fundamentally contradict the ECtHR authorities.

Court of Appeal

The

Court of Appeal An appellate court, commonly called a court of appeal(s), appeal court, court of second instance or second instance court, is any court of law that is empowered to Hearing (law), hear a Legal case, case upon appeal from a trial court or other ...

restored the Tribunal, and held that section 146 could not be interpreted compatibly with ECHR article 11.

Supreme Court

The

Supreme Court In most legal jurisdictions, a supreme court, also known as a court of last resort, apex court, high (or final) court of appeal, and court of final appeal, is the highest court within the hierarchy of courts. Broadly speaking, the decisions of ...

held that section 146 was incompatible with ECHR article 11. Because it literally restricted detriment against a worker for union activities "at an appropriate time", and that was defined as outside working hours, employers could subject workers to detriment for strikes in working hours, without any remedy for the worker. The provision could not be interpreted compatibly with article 11. The Supreme Court therefore issued a declaration of incompatibility under the

Human Rights Act 1998 The Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42) is an Act of Parliament (United Kingdom), Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom which received royal assent on 9 November 1998, and came into force on 2 October 2000. Its aim was to incorporate into UK law the ...

section 4. Lady Simler gave the judgment of the court.

Notes

{{reflist, 2

References

External links

Alternative Futures Group website
United Kingdom labour case law 2024 in United Kingdom case law